Opinion ID: 1203468
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: PCRA Proceedings

Text: After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear Robertson's direct appeal, Robertson filed, with counsel, an application for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). The Court of Common Pleas rejected Robertson's claims for PCRA relief. Robertson appealed, pro se, to the Superior Court, which affirmed. The Superior Court rejected Robertson's claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on his direct appeal, and on his PCRA claims before the Court of Common Pleas. It also rejected Robertson's argument that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finally, as most relevant here, the Superior Court rejected Robertson's claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of two conspiracies. The Superior Court noted that Robertson had waived that issue on his direct appeal, but concluded that it could consider the merits of Robertson's claim because he alleged that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to set forth the correct standard and in causing the issue to be waived and therefore Robertson properly layered the issue. App. at 34 n. 7. On the merits, the Superior Court noted that Pennsylvania courts consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies have been established. The Superior Court recognized that several factors supported Robertson's argument that the evidence was sufficient to prove only a single conspiracy, including that the Povliks were killed at approximately the same time; were killed with the same firearm and at the same location; and that the same person or persons killed them. However, the Superior Court concluded that the central factor here is the number of victims and that the objective of the first conspiracy was the criminal homicide of Edward James Povlik and the objective of the second conspiracy was the criminal homicide of Karen Marie Povlik. App. at 37. The Court also noted that, under Robertson's position, one agreement to kill twenty people should be punished the same as one agreement to kill one person, because there was only a single overarching conspiracy. We reject [that] argument. App. at 38. [3]