Opinion ID: 1562759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Instructions Violated Mills v. Maryland

Text: Appellant next claims that the trial court's penalty phase jury instruction, stating that the jury had to be unanimous in finding any mitigating circumstance before it could give effect to that mitigating circumstance, violated the Eighth Amendment as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 373-75, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), which was decided after the trial in this case. Appellant argues that the trial court's instruction stressed the need for unanimity with respect to both the verdict and the jury's findings and indicated that the jury was to make its findings as to mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the same manner with the exception of the burden of proof. Appellant contends that the instructions in the present case are similar to those which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held violated Mills in Frey v. Fulcomer, 132 F.3d 916 (3d Cir.1997). Appellant further maintains that, in Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 411-12, 124 S.Ct. 2504, 159 L.Ed.2d 494 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Mills applies to cases, such as the case sub judice, that were on appeal at the time Mills was decided. Appellant contends that because a Mills claim will be available to appellant in federal court, he can presently seek relief under Mills pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(v) of the pre-amendment PCRA. [35] Appellant argues that this claim is cognizable because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury charge and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness on direct appeal. [36] Appellant also asserts that appellate counsel could have raised this Mills claim under the then-existent doctrine of relaxed waiver regardless of whether it was preserved by trial counsel. The Commonwealth asserts that this claim is without merit because trial counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to raise a Mills objection at a trial that took place before Mills was decided. Citing Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 538 Pa. 455, 649 A.2d 121, 126 n. 4 (1994), the Commonwealth states that this Court has consistently held that the Pennsylvania death penalty statute does not violate Mills and that Mills is not retroactive. Further, the Commonwealth notes that the U.S. Supreme Court decided Beard v. Banks after the PCRA opinion in the present case and the High Court has held that Mills does not apply retroactively to a defendant such as appellant, whose trial was completed prior to Mills. Citing Beard v. Banks , the Commonwealth explains that the U.S. Supreme Court has also held that Mills was a new rule of law which does not fall within the two exceptions of non-retroactivity described in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). With respect to appellant's argument that the Lockett/Eddings/Skipper line of cases establish the underpinnings of Mills, the Commonwealth notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that those cases did not compel the holding in Mills. See Banks, 542 U.S. at 416, 124 S.Ct. 2504. The PCRA court concluded that this claim lacks arguable merit because, citing Peterkin, the Pennsylvania death penalty statute does not violate Mills and Mills does not apply retroactively. In Mills, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in a capital case a sentencer may not be precluded from considering and giving full effect to any mitigating evidence. Mills, 486 U.S. at 374, 108 S.Ct. 1860. Mills set forth a new procedural rule governing capital sentencing, specifically holding that when weighing the aggravators and mitigators, the jury's finding of mitigating circumstances did not have to be unanimous. In Banks, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Mills established a new constitutional rule of law for Teague purposes and, because it was not a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating fundamental fairness, Mills should not be applied retroactively to cases in which the defendant's conviction became final prior to Mills. Banks, 542 U.S. at 416, 419-20, 124 S.Ct. 2504. Banks, also concluded that Lockett did not mandate the Mills rule and thus Mills was a non-retroactive new rule. Banks, 542 U.S. at 414, 124 S.Ct. 2504. Similar to the procedural posture of the present case, the allegedly erroneous jury instruction in Commonwealth v. Duffey, 585 Pa. 493, 889 A.2d 56, 71 (2005) was given prior to the High Court's decision in Mills and the direct appeal was issued after it. Because the appellant never raised or preserved a Mills claim before the trial court or on direct appeal, we held that the Mills claim was waived and only a derivative ineffectiveness claim remained. Duffey, 889 A.2d at 71; see also Commonwealth v. Cox, 581 Pa. 107, 863 A.2d 536, 554 (2004) (unpreserved Mills claim is waived and cannot be basis for relief under PCRA where alleged improper instruction was given prior to Mills and judgment of sentence was not final until after Mills ). Here, as in Duffey, appellant never raised or preserved a Mills claim before the trial court or on direct appeal. Therefore, the Mills claim is waived and only a derivative ineffectiveness claim remains. [37] Appellant claims, however, that even though trial counsel did not object to the instruction, appellate counsel was nevertheless ineffective for failing to raise Mills on direct appeal under the discretionary relaxed waiver doctrine which was then applied in direct capital appeals. But, appellant once again ignores the controlling fact that he directed his trial counsel not to present any mitigating evidence and not to attempt to prove any mitigating circumstances. The jury, thus, had no mitigators to weigh. Because the jury could not weigh any mitigators against the aggravators, the instructions implicating Mills did not prejudice appellant. For this reason, any Mills -based ineffectiveness claim necessarily fails.