71 A.3d 1061
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Willie Jones was convicted of rape and related offenses; his direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court (Commonwealth v. Jones).
- Jones filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in May 2010; counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition raising multiple claims.
- The PCRA court granted relief (a new trial) based solely on its finding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the jury be polled after the verdict was announced.
- The PCRA court treated counsel’s failure to request polling as per se ineffective and appeared to presume prejudice from that omission, so it did not address Jones’s other PCRA claims.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the PCRA court erred by presuming prejudice and by finding counsel per se ineffective without applying the standard ineffectiveness test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to request jury polling is per se ineffective assistance | Jones: omission is ineffective and warrants new trial | Commonwealth: per se ineffectiveness not established; must apply standard test | Court: No per se ineffectiveness; apply three-prong ineffectiveness test |
| Whether prejudice may be presumed from counsel’s failure to request polling | Jones: PCRA court presumed prejudice and granted new trial | Commonwealth: prejudice cannot be presumed; must show reasonable probability of different outcome | Court: Prejudice cannot be presumed; petitioner must prove prejudice under standard test |
| Whether Downey requires granting a new trial when polling error occurs | Jones: relied on Downey to support new trial remedy | Commonwealth: Downey addressed trial-court error, not counsel ineffectiveness | Court: Downey is distinguishable (it involved trial-court refusal to poll), so its rule does not govern ineffectiveness claims |
| Proper scope of remand | Jones: PCRA court already granted relief; no further action needed | Commonwealth: case should be reconsidered applying the correct legal standard | Court: Vacated the PCRA order and remanded for application of the three-part ineffectiveness test and consideration of remaining PCRA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 996 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 2010) (direct-appeal opinion affirming Jones’s judgment of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 1994) (articulated three-part ineffective-assistance test applied to failure to request jury polling)
- Commonwealth v. Rivers, 390 A.2d 197 (Pa. Super. 1978) (declined to find ineffectiveness where foreman twice announced unanimous verdict and polling would have been fruitless)
- Commonwealth v. Downey, 732 A.2d 593 (Pa. 1999) (addressed trial-court error in refusing to poll and held new trial warranted for such error)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 983 A.2d 666 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for PCRA orders)