Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Solano, R.
129 A.3d 1156
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Raymond Solano was convicted (2003 jury) of first-degree murder for shooting a victim in a crowded park; jury found the grave-risk aggravator (42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(7)) and the catch-all mitigator (§ 9711(e)(8)) and sentenced him to death. Direct appeals were denied.
- Solano timely filed a PCRA petition raising numerous guilt- and penalty-phase claims, primarily ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, conflict of interest, and newly discovered evidence.
- The PCRA court denied guilt-phase relief but granted a new penalty phase, finding penalty-phase counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present life-history and neuropsychological mitigation.
- The Commonwealth appealed the grant of a new penalty phase; Solano cross-appealed denial of guilt-phase relief. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the denial of guilt-phase relief and affirmed the award of a new penalty phase.
- Key factual bases: multiple eyewitness identifications of Solano as shooter; ballistics tied recovered weapons to shots; limited mitigation presented at trial (mother, foster parents, CYS caseworker); substantial additional family, school, and neuropsychological evidence developed at the PCRA hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Solano) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance in guilt-phase investigation (witnesses, ballistics) | Counsel failed to investigate/ call potential defense witnesses, use retained ballistics expert, and pursue gang-related theory, which prejudiced guilt verdict. | Counsel reasonably investigated given limited cooperation from Solano; strategic choices were reasonable; identifications and ballistics evidence would remain dispositive. | Denied — PCRA court and Supreme Court found counsel’s investigation reasonable or not prejudicial; Solano failed to show available, willing witnesses or reasonable probability of different result. |
| 2. Conflict of interest (same public‑defender office represented alternative suspects) | Concurrent representation of Morales and Concepcion created an actual conflict that impaired counsel’s performance. | Mere overlapping representation absent proof of actual adverse effect does not establish conflict or prejudice. | Denied — claim lacked proof of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel. |
| 3. Brady (failure to disclose plea/cooperation arrangements) | Commonwealth withheld impeachment material about cooperating witnesses (Carrasquillo, Concepcion) that would have undermined credibility. | No proof of undisclosed quid pro quo; impeachment avenues already available; corroborating IDs made materiality lacking. | Denied — PCRA court credited prosecutors; nondisclosure, where alleged, not shown or not material given corroboration. |
| 4. Failure to present/ develop mitigation at penalty phase | Penalty counsel was inexperienced, failed to pursue family, school, and records-based mitigation, did not call mental‑health experts (or prepare them), and thus prejudiced sentencing. | Counsel presented a humanizing mitigation theme through available witnesses; some strategic choices (e.g., not calling certain experts) were reasonable to avoid inflammatory evidence; additional evidence was cumulative. | Granted relief (new penalty phase) — Court upheld PCRA finding that counsel’s mitigation investigation and presentation were unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability the omitted mitigation would have affected at least one juror’s weighing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating evidence and reweighing prejudice at penalty phase)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 615 Pa. 675 (Pennsylvania PCRA standards and review)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 567 Pa. 186 (Pennsylvania articulation of Strickland standards)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 627 Pa. 673 (mitigation weighing — catchall mitigator may be entitled to greater weight if fuller mitigation presented)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 69 (standards for newly discovered evidence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 579 Pa. 490 (skepticism for late confession/recantation evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Malloy, 579 Pa. 425 (reweighing mitigation and prejudice analysis)