Com. v. Smith, S., Com. v. Smith, S. No. 1127 MDA 2016

Stewart C. Smith was convicted after a two-day jury trial of sexual assault, indecent assault, and simple assault and sentenced to an aggregate 7–14 years in 2014; post-conviction review later found the original sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and he was resentenced to 4½–10 years.
Smith filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; the PCRA court granted resentencing but dismissed his remaining PCRA claims and denied an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal from the PCRA court’s dismissal, Smith raised ineffective assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to prevent or object to references to his prior crimes and present incarceration; (2) the PCRA court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s strategy regarding those references; and (3) counsel failed to obtain records (e.g., Facebook, phone records) to impeach the victim or corroborate Smith’s defense.
The Superior Court reviewed preservation under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and the three-part ineffective-assistance test (arguable merit, no reasonable strategic basis, prejudice).
The Court found Smith’s 1925(b) statement too vague to preserve specific ineffective-assistance arguments; it also held some claims were previously litigated on direct appeal and that counsel had reasonable strategic bases for her actions, so no evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smith)	Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth)	Held
1. Trial counsel ineffective for not preventing/ objecting to references to prior crimes and present incarceration	Counsel failed to object and thereby allowed prejudicial references that undermined fairness	Claim was not preserved with sufficient specificity in 1925(b); and on direct appeal the issue lacked merit	Waived for lack of specificity in 1925(b); meritless where raised on direct appeal
2. PCRA court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing on counsel’s strategy about prior-crimes/incarceration references	An evidentiary hearing was needed to examine counsel’s strategy and possible deficiency	No hearing required because the claim lacked arguable merit and was previously litigated on direct appeal	Denied; previously litigated and lacked arguable merit, so no hearing required
3. Counsel ineffective for failing to obtain records (Facebook/phone) to impeach/corroborate	Records would have impeached the victim or supported Smith’s defense; counsel’s omission was deficient	Counsel conducted reasonable cross-examination and pursued a coherent defense strategy; tactical choices need not be second-guessed	Denied; counsel had an objectively reasonable strategic basis and Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing

Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (right to proceed pro se and related procedures)
Ligons v. Commonwealth, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (presumption of effective assistance of counsel)
Johnson, 868 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2005) (three-part ineffective assistance test)
Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement)
Petras, 534 A.2d 483 (Pa. Super. 1988) (when evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance is unnecessary)
Puksar, 951 A.2d 267 (Pa. 2008) (deference to counsel’s reasonable tactical choices)
Staton, 120 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2015) (ineffective-assistance claim fails where counsel pursued reasonable indirect impeachment strategy)