performance and prejudice test in Pennsylvania

2026Where, as here, an appellant asserts that they received ineffective assistance of counsel, the following standards apply: To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 [1984].

2026To overcome this presumption and be entitled to relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), by a preponderance of the evidence. [Pennsylvania courts apply] Strickland by requiring a petitioner to establish three elements: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or failure to act; and (3) appellant suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error, with prejudice measured by whether there is a reasonable probability that t

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).13 This Court has recast the two- part Strickland standard into a three-part test by dividing the performance element into two distinct components.14 To prove that counsel was ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that the petition

2021Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333 , 30 A.3d 1111, 1127 (2011) (employing ineffective assistance of counsel test from Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 975 - 76 (1987)).5 ______ 5 Pierce reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2019“It is settled that the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions: it is the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [] (1984).” Commonwealth v. Gribble, 863 A.2d 455, 460 (Pa. 2004). -2- J-S19007-19 [T]he constitutional ineffectiveness standard requires the defendant to rebut the presumption of professional competence by demonstrating that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis designed to effect

2018"It is settled that the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions: it is the performance and prejudice test set forth ui Strickland v. Washington, 466 US. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)." Commonwealth v. Gribble, 580 Pa. 647 , 863 A.2d 455, 460 (2004) (collecting cases).

2018Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698 , 927 A.2d 586, 599 (2007).

2017When raising a failure to call a potential witness claim, the PCRA petitioner satisfies the performance and prejudice requirement of the Strickland[3] test by establishing that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial. ____________________________________________ 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (198

2024“In Pennsylvania, we have applied the Strickland test by looking to three elements: the petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error, with prejudice measured by whether there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 82 A.3d 998, 1005 (Pa. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987)).

2015Following the PCRA court’s denial of relief on December 30, 2013, this appeal followed.4 The principles that guide our review are as follows: In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court’s determination “is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 82 A.3d 998, 1005 (Pa. 2013). … To obtain relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2015Additionally, “[i]n order to obtain relief on a claim of ineffectiveness, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427, 436 (Pa. 2014).

2015“In order to obtain relief on a claim of ineffectiveness, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427, 436 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2002In any event, it is well-settled that the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both charters: It is the performance and prejudice test as set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694-697 , 122 S.Ct. 1843, 1850-52 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (Pa.1987). 10 To prevail on a claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, the appellant must overcome the presumption of competence by showing that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (

2002In any event, it is well-settled that the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both charters: It is the performance and prejudice test as set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694-697 , 122 S.Ct. 1843, 1850-52 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (Pa.1987). 10 To prevail on a claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, the appellant must overcome the presumption of competence by showing that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).13 This Court has recast the two- part Strickland standard into a three-part test by dividing the performance element into two distinct components.14 To prove that counsel was ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that the petition

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).13 This Court has recast the two- part Strickland standard into a three-part test by dividing the performance element into two distinct components.14 To prove that counsel was ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that the petition

2018Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698 , 927 A.2d 586, 599 (2007).

2017When raising a failure to call a potential witness claim, the PCRA petitioner satisfies the performance and prejudice requirement of the Strickland[3] test by establishing that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial. ____________________________________________ 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (198

2020Commonwealth v. Pierce, 567 Pa. 186 , 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001 ).

2020Commonwealth v. Pierce, 567 Pa. 186 , 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001 ).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 936 A.2d 12, 19 (Pa. 2007) ("rt is settled that the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions: it is the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington ... ").

2013See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 594 Pa. 366 , 936 A.2d 12, 19 (2007) (“It is settled that the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions: it is the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (quoting Commonwealth v. Gribble, 580 Pa. 647 , 863 A.2d 455, 460 (2004) (collecting cases)).

2004See also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694-96 , 122 S.Ct. 1843, 1850-52 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831, 855 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1115 , 124 S.Ct. 1053 , 157 L.Ed.2d 906 (2004); Commonwealth v. Busanet, 572 Pa. 535 , 817 A.2d 1060, 1066 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 869 , 124 S.Ct. 192 , 157 L.Ed.2d 126 (2003); Commonwealth v. (Charles) Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987).

2004See also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694-96 , 122 S.Ct. 1843, 1850-52 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831, 855 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1115 , 124 S.Ct. 1053 , 157 L.Ed.2d 906 (2004); Commonwealth v. Busanet, 572 Pa. 535 , 817 A.2d 1060, 1066 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 869 , 124 S.Ct. 192 , 157 L.Ed.2d 126 (2003); Commonwealth v. (Charles) Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987).

2021Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333 , 30 A.3d 1111, 1127 (2011) (employing ineffective assistance of counsel test from Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 975 - 76 (1987)).5 ______ 5 Pierce reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2014Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1127 (Pa. 2011) (employing ineffective assistance of counsel test from Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975-76 (Pa. 1987)).4 If a petitioner fails to satisfy any prong of the 4 Pierce reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test provided by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2020See Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 156 A.3d 197, 206 (Pa. 2016) (identifying that Pennsylvania courts employ “the performance and prejudice standard set forth in Strickland”).

2020See Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 156 A.3d 197, 206 (Pa. 2016) (identifying that Pennsylvania courts employ “the performance and prejudice standard set forth in Strickland”).

2015See Baumhammers, supra. “In order to obtain relief on a claim of ineffectiveness, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427, 436 (Pa. 2014) (parallel citation omitted).

2015See Baumhammers, supra. “In order to obtain relief on a claim of ineffectiveness, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427, 436 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2015Pierce “reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test ____________________________________________ 8 Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). -4- J-S44029-15 provided by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 831 (Pa. 2014) (citing Pierce, at 527 A.2d at 976–77) (parallel citations omitted).

2015Pierce “reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test provided by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. ____________________________________________ 3 Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). -4- J-S38026-15 Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 831 (Pa. 2014) (citing Pierce, at 527 A.2d at 976–77) (parallel citations omitted).

2014See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 596 Pa. 119 , 941 A.2d 655 (2007). “[T]he test for counsel ineffectiveness is[, in substance,] the same under both the Pennsylvania and federal Constitutions: it is the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland!, supra].” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 582 Pa. 207, 220 , 870 A.2d 822, 829 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 984 , 126 S.Ct. 564 , 163 L.Ed.2d 474 (2005) (quotation, quotation marks, and citations omitted).

2014See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 596 Pa. 119 , 941 A.2d 655 (2007). “[T]he test for counsel ineffectiveness is[, in substance,] the same under both the Pennsylvania and federal Constitutions: it is the performance and prejudice test set forth in Strickland!, supra].” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 582 Pa. 207, 220 , 870 A.2d 822, 829 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 984 , 126 S.Ct. 564 , 163 L.Ed.2d 474 (2005) (quotation, quotation marks, and citations omitted).

2018Ali, 10 A.3d at 291 . [Footnote 5]: Pierce reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2018Ali, 10 A.3d at 291 . [Footnote 5] Pierce reiterates the preexisting three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in Pennsylvania and holds it to be consistent with the two-prong performance and prejudice test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).13 This Court has recast the two- part Strickland standard into a three-part test by dividing the performance element into two distinct components.14 To prove that counsel was ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that the petition

2011Commonwealth v. Rainey, 593 Pa. 67 , 928 A.2d 215 , 225 n. 8 (2007). .

2024See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009). - 15 - J-S16026-24 In his pro se response to Attorney Kravitz’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief, Chavous has made no effort to identify, let alone plead and prove the three prongs of the performance and prejudice test in relation to his claim of Attorney Kravitz’s ineffectiveness.

2024See Johnson, 139 A.3d at 1272 .

2023Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287, 296 (Pa. 2017).

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).13 This Court has recast the two- part Strickland standard into a three-part test by dividing the performance element into two distinct components.14 To prove that counsel was ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that the petition

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must satisfy the performance and prejudice test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).13 This Court has recast the two- part Strickland standard into a three-part test by dividing the performance element into two distinct components.14 To prove that counsel was ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that the petition

2019Further, “[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing are not cognizable ____________________________________________ 3 The three-factor approach utilized in Pennsylvania derives from Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987), which applied the performance and prejudice test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -6- J-S71013-18 under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 593 (Pa. Super. 2007).