Marc Pennock v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI, 714 F. App'x 154

In 2006 Pennock was convicted after a bench trial of multiple offenses arising from an armed robbery, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, and conspiracy.
At sentencing the court initially announced concurrent 9–18 year terms on attempted murder and aggravated assault; defense counsel said he would file a motion to reconsider the attempted murder sentence.
The court then suspended the attempted murder sentence and imposed concurrent 9–18 year terms on aggravated assault and conspiracy; no post-sentence motion was filed.
Pennock’s attempted murder conviction was vacated on direct appeal; other convictions and sentences were affirmed. He pursued PCRA relief claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post-sentence motion to preserve challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, finding Pennock failed to show actual prejudice (no reasonable probability of a different outcome). Pennock filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was denied; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post‑sentence motion to preserve discretionary sentencing claims	Pennock: failure to file deprived him of appellate review of discretionary sentencing and thus constituted ineffective assistance that produced prejudice	Commonwealth/Respondent: failure to file did not per se establish prejudice; petitioner must show a reasonable probability of a different outcome	Court: Affirmed state court — no unreasonable application of Strickland; petitioner failed to show actual prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA review requires deference; state court decisions get latitude)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (double deference when applying Strickland on federal habeas)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas review limits regarding state‑law determinations)
Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (occasional imprecise wording does not defeat correct application of legal standard)
Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92 (plenary review where district court held no evidentiary hearing)
Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported ground)
Priester v. Vaughn, 382 F.3d 394 (federal courts defer to state court assessments of prejudice on ineffective assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. Ct. precedent on waiver for failure to file post‑sentence motion)