Commonwealth v. Robinson, 623 Pa. 345

Background

Harvey Miguel Robinson was convicted of three 1992–1993 rape‑murders and sentenced to death for the murder of Jessica Fortney; guilt and penalty phases occurred in 1994 and the jury returned death verdicts for all three murders initially.
At penalty, defense presented family witnesses and Dr. Robert Sadoff (forensic psychiatrist), who diagnosed antisocial personality disorder; counsel did not put Robinson on the stand.
Appellant later alleged trial counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of frontal‑lobe brain damage (notably a 26‑point drop between 1981 and 1989 IQ tests) and failed to provide school records to Dr. Sadoff; PCRA counsel obtained MRI/PET scans and neuropsychological testing years later.
The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings, credited trial counsel’s testimony that he obtained and provided school records to Dr. Sadoff, found no Strickland prejudice from any alleged omission, and denied relief; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.
Appellant also argued presenting the antisocial personality disorder diagnosis was ineffective assistance and contended his brain damage should bar execution under an Atkins/Roper extension; the court rejected both challenges.

Issues

Issue	Robinson's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Did trial counsel fail to obtain/provide school records and thus fail to investigate mitigation (brain damage)?	Counsel did not provide school/juvenile records to Dr. Sadoff; the IQ drop was a "red flag" requiring neuropsych testing.	Trial counsel obtained and provided the records; PCRA court should credit counsel.	PCRA court’s credibility finding crediting counsel was supported; no ineffective assistance.
Even if records were not provided, did Robinson show prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure?	Neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence would have shown frontal‑lobe damage and created a reasonable probability of a life sentence.	Expert disagreement and overwhelming aggravating facts make prejudice improbable; imaging was not routinely used for forensic purposes in 1994.	No Strickland prejudice shown given the severity and quantity of aggravators and counter‑expert testimony.
Was presenting evidence of antisocial personality disorder ineffective or per se harmful?	Diagnosis is aggravating, not mitigating; eliciting it was disastrous strategy.	Counsel reasonably chose to present an impartial expert to contextualize life history; strategy was tactical.	Presentation was a reasonable strategic choice; appellant failed to show prejudice.
Does Eighth Amendment require exempting severely brain‑damaged offenders from death (extension of Atkins/Roper)?	Execution of severely brain‑damaged (and young) offenders offends evolving standards; seek extension of Atkins/Roper.	No controlling federal precedent extends Atkins/Roper to this class; Robinson does not meet Atkins or Roper.	Claim seeks new federal rule; PCRA is not the vehicle to create such a rule; claim denied.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 581 Pa. 154, 864 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2004) (direct‑appeal opinion addressing guilt and penalty issues)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (performance‑and‑prejudice test for counsel ineffectiveness)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment bar on executing the mentally retarded)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (Eighth Amendment bar on executing offenders under 18 at the time of offense)
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 609 Pa. 128, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (guidance on evaluating mitigation and Strickland prejudice in capital cases)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (procedures limiting direct appeal ineffective‑assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (narrow exception permitting some ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (clarifying prejudice inquiry under ineffective assistance)