Opinion ID: 1441429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Alleged Ineffectiveness for Failure to Argue Mitigating Factors

Text: The next allegation of ineffectiveness concerns the fact that trial counsel did not argue that the Appellant's cooperation with the police after his arrest is a mitigating factor. He argues that the information that he provided the police about Walker and Lee's drug business was powerfully mitigating and that trial counsel had no strategic basis for not making this argument. We disagree. The record shows that the Appellant pled guilty to both of these murders on November 15, 1993. In exchange for his guilty pleas, cooperation, and testimony against Walker and Lee, the Commonwealth agreed to two life sentences. However, the Appellant later changed his mind and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the court granted. Consequently, if defense counsel had argued that the Appellant's cooperation with the Commonwealth was a mitigating factor, the Commonwealth could have presented evidence to show that he withdrew his agreement and did not testify against Walker and Lee. [9] Because this would have been damaging evidence against Lee, trial counsel had a reasonable basis for not presenting evidence of the Appellant's alleged cooperation with the Commonwealth and by that allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of his true conduct here.