Com. v. Smith, W., Com. v. Smith, W. No. 407 WDA 2016

On December 23, 2011, William Earl Smith ("Smith") shot Malik Muhammed once at close range; victim identified Smith (known as "Wee Wee") and sustained serious injuries.
At trial, evidence included the victim’s in-court identification, his hospital statement identifying "Wee Wee," and forensic testing that found "indicative" (but not characteristic) gunshot residue particles on Smith’s hands; testimony explained reasons characteristic particles might be absent.
A jury convicted Smith of attempted homicide and related assault counts; he was sentenced to 18–40 years. This Court affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review.
Smith filed a timely pro se PCRA petition raising numerous claims (judicial/prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary/forensic issues, ineffective assistance); appointed counsel filed an amended PCRA petition asserting two ineffective-assistance claims (failure to call witness Daylan McLee; failure to file post-sentence motion challenging weight of the evidence).
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on March 16, 2016; Smith proceeded pro se on appeal after waiving counsel following a Grazier hearing.
On appeal Smith argued actual innocence, plain error, and ineffective assistance (including failure to challenge warrant/affidavit and failure to raise a weight-of-evidence claim); the court found many claims waived and rejected the preserved ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Smith is actually innocent	Smith argued new proof/forensic issues show innocence	Commonwealth relied on trial evidence and procedural bars	Waived on appeal and not cognizable under PCRA; would fail on record
Whether trial court committed plain error/denied fair trial	Smith claimed judicial/prosecutorial bias and improper questioning/evidence use	Commonwealth asserted procedural default and sufficiency of record	Waived for failure to include in Rule 1925(b); would fail on merits
IAC for failing to investigate/attack arrest warrant/affidavit	Smith says counsel failed to recognize illegal warrant/affidavit	Commonwealth: claim not raised below — waived	Waived for not being raised in PCRA petition or Rule 1925(b)
IAC for failing to file post-sentence motion challenging weight of the evidence	Smith contends counsel’s omission prejudiced him because GSR testing was negative for characteristic particles	Commonwealth: weight claim would have failed given identification and explanatory forensic testimony	Denied — counsel presumed effective; even if motion had been filed, no reasonable probability of different outcome; no prejudice shown

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (weight-of-the-evidence standard and appellate review of trial court discretion)
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 640 A.2d 1251 (Pa. 1994) (reasonable basis inquiry for counsel strategy)
Commonwealth v. Howard, 719 A.2d 233 (Pa. 1998) (competent counsel standard; alternatives must offer substantially greater potential)
Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (prejudice prong alone can dispose of IAC claims)
Commonwealth v. Serrano, 61 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse of discretion definition)
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for defendant waiving right to counsel on appeal)