Gustavo Xavier v. Superintendent Albion SCI, 689 F. App'x 686

Gustavo Xavier was charged with criminal homicide and aggravated assault, attempted suicide after the incident, and was interrogated by police at the hospital for about 75 minutes after being Mirandized.
Xavier pled guilty to third-degree murder under a negotiated plea (20–40 years); other homicide and aggravated assault charges were dropped.
Xavier filed habeas claims alleging his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC): (1) counsel failed to move to suppress his hospital statements, and (2) counsel failed to advise him that manslaughter was a lesser‑included offense.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected the suppression-related IAC claim on the merits; the federal magistrate and district court denied habeas relief based on that reasoning and found the lesser‑included claim procedurally defaulted under Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a).
The Third Circuit affirmed denial of the suppression-related IAC claim under AEDPA deference but reversed the procedural‑default ruling, holding Xavier had fairly presented the lesser‑included/offense IAC claim to the state court and remanded for merits review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress hospital confession	Xavier: counsel’s failure to move to suppress prejudiced him; he would have demanded a plea to manslaughter absent the statements	Commonwealth/State: Superior Court found no prejudice because Xavier did not aver he would have refused the plea absent the motion; plea colloquy waived pretrial motions	Affirmed: State court decision denying claim on merits was not unreasonable under AEDPA; no prejudice shown under Hill/Strickland standard
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that manslaughter was a lesser‑included offense	Xavier: counsel’s failure to advise deprived him of a knowing plea and possible lesser charge conviction	Commonwealth/State: District court held claim procedurally defaulted under Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a) (insufficient briefing)	Reversed as to procedural default: Xavier’s state filings sufficiently presented the claim; remanded for merits consideration

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (discussing AEDPA deference to state‑court decisions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for IAC)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying prejudice prong to guilty‑plea cases)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default doctrine)
Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (third‑circuit standards for independent and adequate state procedural bars)
Rolan v. Coleman, 680 F.3d 311 (third‑circuit discussion of fair presentation and procedural default)
Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36 (third‑circuit standard of review citation)