penalty phase hearing in Pennsylvania

2011Cf. Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 597 Pa. 648, 675-76 , 952 A.2d 640, 655-56 (2008) (crediting a post-conviction court's finding of deficient stewardship relative to a similarly "highly truncated mitigation presentation"); Commonwealth v. O'Donnell, 559 Pa. 320 , 347 n. 13, 740 A.2d 198 , 214 n. 13 (1999) ("[l]t is difficult to disagree with [the appellant] that a defense which amasses only four pages of transcript simply does not reflect adequate preparation or development of mitigating evidence by counsel representing a capital defendant in a penalty phase hearing."). [3] Finally, again without

2011Cf. Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 597 Pa. 648, 675-76 , 952 A.2d 640, 655-56 (2008) (crediting a post-conviction court's finding of deficient stewardship relative to a similarly "highly truncated mitigation presentation"); Commonwealth v. O'Donnell, 559 Pa. 320 , 347 n. 13, 740 A.2d 198 , 214 n. 13 (1999) ("[l]t is difficult to disagree with [the appellant] that a defense which amasses only four pages of transcript simply does not reflect adequate preparation or development of mitigating evidence by counsel representing a capital defendant in a penalty phase hearing."). [3] Finally, again without

2009See Commonwealth v. Williams, 581 Pa. 57 , 863 A.2d 505, 520 (2004) (holding that PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find defendant's mental health experts convincing in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance for not presenting mental health evidence); Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266 , 719 A.2d 233, 238 (1998) ("[T]his Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circumstance where there is no showing that such testimony. . . would have been beneficial in terms of alt

2009See Commonwealth v. Williams, 581 Pa. 57 , 863 A.2d 505, 520 (2004) (holding that PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find defendant's mental health experts convincing in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance for not presenting mental health evidence); Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266 , 719 A.2d 233, 238 (1998) ("[T]his Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circumstance where there is no showing that such testimony. . . would have been beneficial in terms of alt

2003For one thing, the dereliction in that case did not involve a mere failure to meet with the client but also "failure to investigate a potential eyewitness, gross inattention to the capital nature of [the] client's plight, failure to prepare for the penalty phase of trial, failure to present known character witnesses, and presentation of such a pitiful parody of a defense case at the penalty phase hearing...." Id. at 709.

2003For one thing, the dereliction in that case did not involve a mere failure to meet with the client but also "failure to investigate a potential eyewitness, gross inattention to the capital nature of [the] client’s plight, failure to prepare for the penalty phase of trial, failure to present known character witnesses, and presentation of such a pitiful parody of a defense case at the penalty phase hearing----” Id. at 709.

2026Commonwealth v. Smith, 995 A.2d 1143, 1173 (Pa. 2010) [(Smith II)].

2015Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 Pa. 127 , 995 A.2d 1143, 1173 (2010).

2021See Commonwealth v. Rompilla, 983 A.2d 1207 (Pa. 2009) (concluding that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over an appeal filed by an appellant who had been awarded a new penalty phase hearing and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to an agreement with the Commonwealth).

2019See Commonwealth v. Rompilla , 603 Pa. 332 , 983 A.2d 1207 , 1211 (2009) (distinguishing Bryant because it was a PCRA appeal where a new penalty-phase hearing was pending "and the prospect of a sentence of death remained").

2018Id. at 452-53 ; id. at 450 (Nigro, J., dissenting).

2018Id. at 452-53 ; id. at 450 (Nigro, J., dissenting).

2014Commonwealth v. Gibson, 610 Pa. 332 , 19 A.3d 512, 526 (2011) (“Gibson II ”).

2014Commonwealth v. Gibson, 610 Pa. 332 , 19 A.3d 512, 526 (2011) (“Gibson II ”).

1999See Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219, 245 , 675 A.2d 1221, 1233-34 (1996)(plurality opinion), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1153 , 117 S.Ct. 1090 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). [18] On the other hand, this Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circumstance where there was no showing that such testimony was indicated by evidence of mental illness, or that such testimony would have been beneficial in terms of altering the outcome of the penalty phase hearing.

1999See Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219, 245 , 675 A.2d 1221, 1233-34 (1996)(plurality opinion), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1153 , 117 S.Ct. 1090 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). [18] On the other hand, this Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circumstance where there was no showing that such testimony was indicated by evidence of mental illness, or that such testimony would have been beneficial in terms of altering the outcome of the penalty phase hearing.

1999See Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219, 245 , 675 A.2d 1221, 1233-34 (1996)(plurality opinion), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1153 , 117 S.Ct. 1090 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). 18 On the other hand, this Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circum stance where there was no showing that such testimony was indicated by evidence of mental illness, or that such testimony would have been beneficial in terms of altering the outcome of the penalty phase hearing.

1999See Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219, 245 , 675 A.2d 1221, 1233-34 (1996)(plurality opinion), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1153 , 117 S.Ct. 1090 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). [18] On the other hand, this Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circumstance where there was no showing that such testimony was indicated by evidence of mental illness, or that such testimony would have been beneficial in terms of altering the outcome of the penalty phase hearing.

1999See Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219, 245 , 675 A.2d 1221, 1233-34 (1996)(plurality opinion), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1153 , 117 S.Ct. 1090 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). 18 On the other hand, this Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circum stance where there was no showing that such testimony was indicated by evidence of mental illness, or that such testimony would have been beneficial in terms of altering the outcome of the penalty phase hearing.

1999See Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219, 245 , 675 A.2d 1221, 1233-34 (1996)(plurality opinion), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1153 , 117 S.Ct. 1090 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). [18] On the other hand, this Court has declined to find counsel ineffective for failing to proffer testimony from a mental health professional to establish a mitigating circumstance where there was no showing that such testimony was indicated by evidence of mental illness, or that such testimony would have been beneficial in terms of altering the outcome of the penalty phase hearing.

1999See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 276-77 , 719 A.2d 233, 238-39 (1998); Lark, 548 Pa. at 458 , 698 A.2d at 51 ; Brown, 544 Pa. at 425 , 676 A.2d at 1187 ; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 539 Pa. 128 , 134 n. 6, 650 A.2d 863 , 866-67 n. 6 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 1799 , 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).

1999See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 276-77 , 719 A.2d 233, 238-39 (1998); Lark, 548 Pa. at 458 , 698 A.2d at 51 ; Brown, 544 Pa. at 425 , 676 A.2d at 1187 ; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 539 Pa. 128 , 134 n. 6, 650 A.2d 863 , 866-67 n. 6 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 1799 , 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).

2013Rather, this Court cited to the statutory review factors only to assess the merits of the preserved issue. 846 A.2d at 100-01 .

2009Aggravating circumstances provide the means of narrowing the class for purposes of eligibility and, under the Pennsylvania statute, along with mitigating circumstances and victim impact evidence, serve as the bases for the selection decision.") (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421 , 846 A.2d 75, 101 (2004) ("In the eligibility determination, the statutory scheme must narrow the class of persons for whom the death penalty applies and justify the imposition of such penalty as compared to others found guilty of murder.

2007See, e.g., Wilson, 580 Pa. 439 , 861 A.2d 919 ; Commonwealth v. Michael, 755 A.2d 1274 (2000) (plurality) (declining to find counsel ineffective for failing to investigate potential mitigation defense because the defendant had waived the investigation, even though the trial court had ordered counsel to contact the defendant's family and friends and prepare a penalty phase defense).

2007See, e.g., Wilson, 580 Pa. 439 , 861 A.2d 919 ; Commonwealth v. Michael, 755 A.2d 1274 (2000) (plurality) (declining to find counsel ineffective for failing to investigate potential mitigation defense because the defendant had waived the investigation, even though the trial court had ordered counsel to contact the defendant’s family and friends and prepare a penalty phase defense).

1999See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 276-77 , 719 A.2d 233, 238-39 (1998); Lark, 548 Pa. at 458 , 698 A.2d at 51 ; Brown, 544 Pa. at 425 , 676 A.2d at 1187 ; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 539 Pa. 128 , 134 n. 6, 650 A.2d 863 , 866-67 n. 6 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 1799 , 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).

1999See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 276-77 , 719 A.2d 233, 238-39 (1998); Lark, 548 Pa. at 458 , 698 A.2d at 51 ; Brown, 544 Pa. at 425 , 676 A.2d at 1187 ; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 539 Pa. 128 , 134 n. 6, 650 A.2d 863 , 866-67 n. 6 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 1799 , 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).

1999See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 276-77 , 719 A.2d 233, 238-39 (1998); Lark, 548 Pa. at 458 , 698 A.2d at 51 ; Brown, 544 Pa. at 425 , 676 A.2d at 1187 ; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 539 Pa. 128 , 134 n. 6, 650 A.2d 863 , 866-67 n. 6 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 1799 , 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).

1999See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 276-77 , 719 A.2d 233, 238-39 (1998); Lark, 548 Pa. at 458 , 698 A.2d at 51 ; Brown, 544 Pa. at 425 , 676 A.2d at 1187 ; see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 539 Pa. 128 , 134 n. 6, 650 A.2d 863 , 866-67 n. 6 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085 , 115 S.Ct. 1799 , 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).

2026See id. at 149-158 .

2023See J-S37006-22 Commonwealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80, 90 (Pa. 2008) Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court rejected that claim but awarded Appellant a new penalty-phase hearing.

2019See Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256 (3rd Cir. 2008) (Opinion filed August 20, 2008, Amended Opinion filed October 17, 2008).

2017See Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917 , 922 n.4 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA petitioner waived claim that his convictions for three counts of soliciting perjury should have merged with convictions for three counts of soliciting to hinder apprehension or prosecution where, among other waivers, he failed to raise this issue in his Rule 1925 statement); Commonwealth v. Bond, 985 A.2d 810, 823 (Pa. 2009) (capital defendant waived claim that he was entitled to a new penalty phase hearing because trial court required him to be shackled during original hearing, where defendant failed to include that claim i

2017See Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917 , 922 n.4 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA petitioner waived claim that his convictions for three counts of soliciting perjury should have merged with convictions for three counts of soliciting to hinder apprehension or prosecution where, among other waivers, he failed to raise this issue in his Rule 1925 statement); Commonwealth v. Bond, 985 A.2d 810, 823 (Pa. 2009) (capital defendant waived claim that he was entitled to a new penalty phase hearing because trial court required him to be shackled during original hearing, where defendant failed to include that claim i

2017Kindler v. Horn, 291 F. Supp. 2d 323, 343 (E.D.