Commonwealth v. Fears
624 Pa. 446
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Fears pled guilty to first-degree murder, corruption of minors, abuse of a corpse, and two counts IDSI related to a 12-year-old victim.
- Penalty phase included a court-ordered psychiatric interview diagnosing pedophilia; Dr. Martone testified appellant panicked and killed after a sexual impulse.
- Trial court found one statutory aggravator (murder in perpetration of a felony) and a catch-all mitigation; death sentence imposed and other offenses sentenced to prison.
- Appellant’s direct appeal challenged numerous trial and appellate ineffectiveness claims; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Post-conviction relief petition (PCRA) denied; issues raised include diminished capacity, waivers, IDSI pleas, trial/appeal counsel effectiveness, Eighth Amendment claims, and proportionality review.
- This PCRA appeal proceeds under 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, with layered claims focusing on appellate counsel’s effectiveness and whether relief is due.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diminished capacity and ineffective assistance | Appellant asserts diminished capacity to form intent and ineffective appellate representation for not pursuing it. | Commonwealth contends claims were litigated and lack merit; appellate counsel acted reasonably in presenting it. | Meritless; appellate strategy reasonable; no relief awarded. |
| Knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleading guilty and waivers | Appellant argues mental issues invalidated pleas and waivers; appellate counsel failed to pursue. | Commonwealth argues waivers and pleas were knowing and voluntary; evidence supported this. | No relief; waivers/pleas held valid; ineffective-assistance claim not proven. |
| IDSI guilty pleas validity and related sentencing | Challenges to factual basis, corpus delicti, voluntariness, and prejudice from second IDSI plea. | Arguments either previously litigated or lack merit; second IDSI harmless as to aggravation. | Claims meritless; no ineffective-assistance relief. |
| Waiver of penalty phase jury | Argues waiver was not knowing or voluntary and lacked proper written form. | Colloquy satisfied Mills protections; writing requirement not required for waiver. | Waiver valid; no relief for appellate-ineffectiveness. |
| Proportionality review and Eighth Amendment scope | Lack of proportionality review violated due process and ex post facto protections; execution of chronically mentally impaired raised as Atkins issue. | Proportionality reviewabolished for post-repeal cases; Atkins-based claim not cognizable on PCRA. | No relief; proportionality review not due; Atkins claim not cognizable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (standard for PCRA review and effectiveness analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 836 A.2d 52 (Pa. 2003) (direct appeal and layered-ineffectiveness framework)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005) (previously litigated/waived issues and collateral-review timing)
- Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014 (Pa. 2003) (coextensive Strickland standard for layered claims)
- Commonwealth v. O’Shea, 567 A.2d 1023 (Pa. 1989) (upholding constitutionality of aggravated murder in felony-perpetration context)
- Commonwealth v. Singley, 868 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2005) (direct-appeal framework for death-penalty review)
- Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 595 A.2d 28 (Pa. 1991) (reliance on Atkins framework in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Gribble, 703 A.2d 426 (Pa. 1997) (proportionality review in first-degree murder context)