Com. v. Smith, M.
1030 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Marquale Smith and the victim were former partners with a six-month-old child; the victim visited Smith’s home to pick up the child on May 13, 2013.
- Smith confronted the victim about alleged infidelity, seized her phone and keys, and engaged in two sexual encounters the victim said were non-consensual; she reported the assaults to police and sought medical attention.
- A jury convicted Smith of sexual assault, indecent assault, unlawful restraint, and criminal mischief; he was sentenced to 3–6 years’ imprisonment; Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Smith filed a counseled PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, raising (inter alia) failure to prepare him to testify and failure to elicit evidence of a custody dispute as motive for the victim to lie.
- At the PCRA hearing, the court found Smith’s testimony not credible, credited counsel and Smith’s mother that pretrial discussions occurred, and found counsel reasonably pursued a consensual-sex defense while avoiding weak custody-dispute evidence.
- The PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that Smith failed to prove both deficiency and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel failed to prepare Smith to testify | Smith said he was not told he would testify or how to testify, harming his demeanor and testimony | Counsel and Smith’s mother testified pretrial discussions occurred; final decision to testify was made after Commonwealth’s case; counsel advised Smith | Court found Smith not credible; no ineffectiveness or prejudice proved — claim denied |
| Whether counsel failed to elicit custody-dispute evidence as motive for false accusation | Smith argued evidence of his intent to seek custody would show victim had motive to fabricate | Counsel explained no custody proceeding was pending, evidence was weak, and strategy was to show consensual sex and ongoing relationship | Court held trial strategy reasonable; even if arguable, Smith failed to show prejudice — claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2011) (credibility findings by post-conviction court are binding when supported)
- Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 810 A.2d 1257 (Pa. 2002) (three-part test for ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (ineffectiveness claims may be dismissed on prejudice ground alone)