Opinion ID: 2422962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: General Challenges

Text: Finally, Lesko raises two summary claims. The first is a claim that the cumulative effect of all of the errors he has alleged warrants a finding of prejudice, such that a new trial and sentencing phase is warranted. We have deemed two claims to be arguably meritorious and disposed of them solely on grounds of lack of prejudice  the Brady claims and the ineffectiveness claim related to remorse, where we assumed arguable merit. The notion of cumulating prejudice does not easily flow from our disposition of such disparate claims. We note, however, that the measure of Brady materiality and Strickland prejudice are the same: a grant of relief depends upon finding a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Compare Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) ([ Brady ] evidence is material `if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different,') with Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.) Even cumulating the ineffectiveness/remorse claim and the Brady claims, all deemed insufficiently prejudicial on their own, we have no doubt that the outcome of the resentencing would have been the same, given the jury's specific findings, the strength of the aggravators, and common sense. Accordingly, this claim fails. Cf. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 600 Pa. 329, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (2009). Finally, Lesko avers that he was denied meaningful appellate review of his case when he was not given the opportunity to demonstrate a number of systemic defects in this Court's proportionality review database. Lesko avers that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing to establish his claim. Additionally, Lesko attacks his trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to participate in the proportionality review process. This Court has examined the issue attacking the method employed by this Court in conducting proportionality review on prior occasions and has concluded that our proportionality review met the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(iii). See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 587 Pa. 1, 896 A.2d 1191, 1249 (2006) (and cases cited therein). Accordingly, we will not consider this issue anew. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the order of the PCRA court, granting Lesko a new trial and a new penalty hearing, and we dismiss the petition for PCRA relief. Jurisdiction relinquished. [34] Justices EAKIN, BAER, McCAFFERY and ORIE MELVIN join the opinion.