199 A.3d 365
Pa.2018Background
- William Rivera was convicted of first-degree murder for a 1995 carjacking and killing; jury recommended death after finding felony-murder aggravator outweighed mitigation.
- At penalty phase, mitigation consisted mainly of testimony from forensic psychologist Dr. Russell; defense did not present extensive life-history or neuropsychological testing evidence then. Rivera later alleged counsel failed to investigate/present such mitigation.
- Rivera filed a PCRA petition; after procedural back-and-forth and a limited evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court held counsel’s investigation was reasonable (in part because Rivera was uncooperative) and credited the Commonwealth expert over defense experts, denying relief.
- On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rivera raised multiple claims of trial, penalty-phase, and appellate counsel ineffectiveness, Batson and jury-selection challenges, Simmons instruction claim, confrontation and sufficiency claims, prosecutorial-misconduct claims, and cumulative error.
- The Court affirmed denial of PCRA relief: it found arguable merit for some mitigation-investigation claims but no Strickland prejudice given the PCRA court’s credibility findings; other claims were waived or meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate/present mental-health and life-history mitigation | Counsel did not obtain DHS/school records or neuropsych testing; additional evidence would show extreme emotional disturbance and inability to conform, creating reasonable probability of at least one juror sparing death | Records were cumulative of juvenile file; Rivera was uncooperative; Commonwealth expert refuted severe impairment or nexus to crime | No relief: PCRA court credibility findings credited Commonwealth expert; no Strickland prejudice established |
| Failure to request Simmons instruction | Prosecutor’s remark (“older he gets, the bolder he gets”) injected future dangerousness; counsel ineffective for not requesting instruction | Prosecutor only argued past conduct and aggravator; remark did not expressly raise future dangerousness | Claim lacked merit (no entitlement to Simmons); concurring justice would find arguable merit but no prejudice |
| Batson / racial discrimination in peremptories and jury-pool composition | Commonwealth struck minorities at higher rates; training video shows office practice; jury pool under-represented Hispanics | Claim waived for failure to raise contemporaneously; record shows peremptories used across races and jury was racially diverse; training video insufficient proof | Waived and meritless: no showing of actual purposeful discrimination |
| Competency / diminished-capacity at guilt phase | Records developed later show incompetence and diminished capacity; counsel ineffective for not investigating further | Rivera chose not to cooperate; court and a psychiatrist found him competent; diminished-capacity defense impossible without testing | Meritless: competency determined at trial; refusal to cooperate forecloses diminished-capacity claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes counsel-performance and prejudice standard)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 515 Pa. 153 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania formulation of Strickland for PCRA claims)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (when future dangerousness is placed at issue, jury must be told life means no parole)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 565 Pa. 289 (2001) (Rivera I) (direct-appeal opinion upholding conviction and sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 (2002) (procedural rule shift deferring ineffective-assistance claims to collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 638 Pa. 336 (2016) (deference to PCRA court credibility findings in mitigation-investigation claims)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 631 Pa. 1 (2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)