Com. v. Tigney, M., 107 WDA 2017

Background

Maurice Tigney was convicted by a jury of third-degree murder for shooting Gary Hager on August 25, 2012; trial court sentenced him to 20–40 years’ imprisonment on June 4, 2014.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence; Tigney did not seek further review.
Tigney filed a PCRA petition (Jan 20, 2016) claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing and challenging discretionary aspects of his sentence.
PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw; the PCRA court gave notice of intent to dismiss and permitted counsel to withdraw; Tigney filed a pro se response.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition on Dec. 14, 2016, concluding counsel was not ineffective at sentencing, the guidelines were correctly calculated, the court had considered the presentence report and § 9721(b) factors, and any mitigation would not have changed the sentence.
Tigney appealed pro se; this Court affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing	Tigney: counsel failed to ensure sentencing judge knew relevant sentencing aspects, failed to correct guideline errors, and failed to present mitigation evidence	Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.: counsel’s conduct had reasonable bases; presentence report and sentencing transcript show court considered mitigation; no prejudice shown	Denied — no arguable merit; Tigney failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice
Whether the sentencing guidelines were erroneously calculated	Tigney: sentence was "erroneously high" (challenge to guidelines/application)	PCRA Ct.: guideline calculation was correct; sentence within standard range and statutory limits	Denied — guidelines properly calculated; sentence legal
Whether the sentencing court abused discretion by failing to state reasons or consider § 9721(b) factors	Tigney: judge failed to state reasons and failed to consider mandated factors	PCRA Ct.: court reviewed presentence report, considered victim impact and § 9721(b) factors, and explained mitigation was insufficient	Denied — record shows court considered relevant factors and reasons implicit in record
Procedural adequacy of appellant’s briefing and presentation of claims	Tigney proceeded pro se and filed a single rambling argument	Commonwealth: pro se status doesn’t excuse compliance with rules; briefs were poorly developed but court declined to find waiver here	Court declined to find waiver for judicial economy but treated claims as meritless on record

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption that counsel is effective; burden on defendant to prove ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. 2002) (three‑part test for PCRA ineffectiveness claims)
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review of legal conclusions in PCRA appeals)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that trial court informed by presentence report considered appropriate factors)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (trial court presumed aware of sentencing considerations when informed by presentence report)
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules)
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate court will not develop arguments for pro se appellant)
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 1982) (issues not properly briefed will not be considered)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for court review of counsel’s no‑merit letter)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel’s withdrawal under PCRA)