Opinion ID: 2305923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Conduct Mitigation Investigation

Text: Next, Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Appellant's background, history, and character, arguing that his counsel's preparation was non-existent, one tantamount to a complete abdication of the role of advocate and an abandonment of his client. Brief for Appellant at 51. Appellant notes that our Court and the United States Supreme Court have required capital counsel to conduct a reasonable investigation, without which there can be no reasonable strategic basis to forego mitigation. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 523, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); Commonwealth v. Zook, 585 Pa. 11, 887 A.2d 1218, 1233-35 (2005). The PCRA court addressed the issue by reference to our analysis when this case was before us on direct appeal, where we concluded that counsel's presentation of mitigating circumstances was reasonably intended to effectuate appellant's best interests, and held that Appellant failed to identify any evidence that would have changed the penalty phase outcome. PCRA Ct. Slip Op. at 10. Initially, we reject the Commonwealth's argument that the mitigation issue has been previously litigated by this Court on direct review. The argument now raised addresses the failure to conduct a proper investigation, where the question on direct appeal challenged the failure to present specific items of mitigation. Nevertheless, we are constrained to deny relief without reaching the merits because Appellant has failed to layer his ineffectiveness of counsel claim by asserting direct appellate counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to raise the ineffectiveness of trial counsel's mitigation investigation on direct appeal. As noted, current PCRA counsel filed a Supplement to the PCRA Petition to add layered claims of ineffectiveness pursuant to McGill. Surprisingly, Appellant specifically exempted from his layered claims the claims relating to the failure of trial counsel to conduct a proper mitigation investigation. He argues that the claim is not record based and thus could not have been pursued by appellate counsel who is without funds and resources to conduct the necessary investigation. Brief for Appellant at 52, n.27, 79, n.42; Final Amended Petition at 11, n.5. [32] Recognizing the potential error, current PCRA counsel (New Counsel) attempts to claim his own ineffectiveness for failing to layer the claim in the reply brief to this Court. The Commonwealth preemptively notes that we foreclosed the possibility of Appellant amending his claim by layering his ineffectiveness argument in a reply brief to this Court, citing our decision in Commonwealth v. Basemore : To avoid any waiver associated with its own representation, [counsel] raises, for the first time in its reply brief, the argument that it was ineffective and thus the issues it now raises can nevertheless be addressed. A reply brief, however, is an inappropriate means for presenting a new and substantively different issue than that addressed in the original brief. In addition, a claim of ineffectiveness on the part of [counsel] could have been raised in the PCRA court, in [appellant's] statement of matters complained of on appeal, or in his original brief. Since this did not occur, any allegation of error in this regard is waived. Commonwealth v. Basemore, 560 Pa. 258, 744 A.2d 717, 726-727 (2000) (citations omitted). We therefore are bound to conclude that the attempt made in the reply brief to assert and layer properly current PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to layer direct appellate counsel's ineffectiveness must fail, despite the potential merits of the underlying claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness for failure to investigate mitigating factors. [33] Accordingly, we find the issue waived.