Opinion ID: 1888436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: was appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise the issues of the trial court's error in permitting the drug involvement aggravating circumstance to go to the jury, and of trial counsel's failure to object?

Text: Appellant states that direct appeal counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient competent evidence to sustain the drug aggravator set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. ง 9711(d)(14). Appellant also faults direct appeal counsel for failing to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness for not objecting to the presentation of this aggravator to the jury. Appellant's claims rest on the assertion that the state of mind evidence that Appellant shot the victim because the victim f-ed up a drug package constituted inadmissible hearsay and even if such evidence was properly admitted, such evidence was insufficient, standing alone, to prove this aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's Brief, 72-76. The Commonwealth asserts this issue is without merit because this Court already has ruled that the evidence was sufficient to establish this aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. See Fletcher I, 750 A.2d at 281. The Commonwealth further submits that the evidence was admissible and sufficient to establish this aggravator. Commonwealth's Brief, 84-86. Although Appellant incorporated his attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence to support this aggravator as a claim of ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness because he failed to raise the underlying claim concerning trial counsel in a post-verdict motion. [51]