Opinion ID: 2306390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Lack of Specific Intent; Passion/Provocation Defense

Text: Appellant next alternatively contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the defense that he lacked the specific intent to kill, not because of a mental impairment as he set forth in his previous claim, but because emotional pressure from his feuding paramours caused him to panic and fire his weapon towards the vehicle in which Riggins was riding. This claim is waived as it was not raised on direct appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). Appellant, however, further claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal. [29] Thus, we shall look to the substance of the underlying claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness in an attempt to determine whether there is arguable merit to the claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness. To elaborate, Appellant asserts that his two paramours, Riggins and Hargrove, had an increasingly violent history, and that Hargrove's family pressured him to protect Hargrove and his unborn child from any future harm. He explains that when he discovered that Riggins had returned to Hargrove's neighborhood, he panicked, and fired his gun solely to scare Riggins. Appellant contends that the physical evidence supports the view that he was not aiming directly at Riggins. He concludes that because the Commonwealth's evidence of specific intent to kill was weak and based on circumstantial evidence, trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting the defense that he lacked the specific intent to kill. As we have already concluded that trial counsel had a reasonable strategy in pursing a misidentification defense, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the inconsistent defense of a lack of specific intent defense likewise fails. [30] As such, the instant claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness lacks arguable merit.