Court Opinion

ID: 9785229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:11:19.170905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:12.750656
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CASTILLE,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion. I write separately to offer my own views of certain points raised in Mr. Justice Saylor’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
Justice Saylor reiterates his concern with a “repeated refrain expressed by counsel” that our rules make it impossible for capital post-conviction defense counsel to predict which ineffectiveness claims will receive merits review. Justice Saylor also expresses the view that this Court’s approach to merits review has been inconsistent from case to case, and that there is a corresponding internal inconsistency in the Court’s approach in this case. Specifically respecting this case, Justice Saylor notes that he cannot discern “any material distinction between the framing of claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness in several of Appellant’s guilt phase claims deemed unworthy of this Court’s consideration and the framing of the penalty argument upon which the majority directs a remand.” Concurring & Dissenting Op. at 352,15 A.3d at 478.
-I-
Pleadings prepared or assisted by the Federal Defender have alleged that this Court’s approach to claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness places capital defense counsel and their clients in a quandary as to what is required to secure merits review on collateral attack. But, I do not credit the allegation. Indeed, I believe the purported quandary is overstated, if not feigned, and the complaint strategic. As Justice Saylor acknowledges, I have written before at some length concerning the complex calculations involved when federal counsel involve themselves in state collateral litigation, which might explain the reasons for obvious deficiencies in their trial level plead*342ings and their appellate briefs. See Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 961 A.2d 786, 834-38 (2008) (Castille, C.J., joined by McCaffery, J., concurring). I need not repeat that analysis here.1
The settled legal standard for assessing Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is found in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and its vast progeny, which includes Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987), the leading Pennsylvania case implementing the Strickland standard. There is also a substantial body of decisional law from the High Court specifically addressing what is required to prove a claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness: Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259,120 S.Ct. 746,145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) and related cases. See Commonwealth v. May, 587 Pa. 184, 898 A.2d 559, 577-79 (2006) (Castille, J., joined by Cappy, C.J. and Eakin, J., concurring) (surveying relevant law). Strickland claims, whether involving trial counsel or appellate counsel, are not self-proving. As the High Court has very recently reiterated, “[s]urmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task.” Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. -,-, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1485, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010)). The Court also reminded that, because “[a]n ineffective-assistance claim can function as a way to escape rules of waiver and *343forfeiture ... the Strickland standard must be applied with scrupulous care.” Id. Otherwise, the inquiry can “threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the right to counsel is meant to serve.” Id.
PCRA2 appeal counsel for a petitioner who would like to ensure so-called “merits” review of an appellate Strickland claim must merely attend to the Sixth Amendment burden imposed by Strickland and Smith v. Robbins. A failure to brief a necessary element of any legal claim, civil or criminal, risks defeat of the claim. Concerning what is required to secure relief on an appellate counsel Strickland claim (whether stand-alone or layered), it remains my considered judgment, after many years of reviewing these briefs, that the failure to develop arguments in conformity with federal substantive command is not a function of this Court’s supposedly changing or elusive standards, but is a product of a “fully realized capital collateral litigation strategy, one whose primary concern is with laying the groundwork for anticipated federal habeas corpus relief’ on other grounds. Steele, 961 A.2d at 836 (Castille, C.J., concurring).
Finally, although the Majority employs the term “waiver” to describe its disposition of the insufficiently developed standalone appellate counsel ineffectiveness claims that are briefed here, I do not believe that this manner of disposition operates to deny merits review; rather, it is a form of merits review. As I explained ten years ago, in the “merits analysis” of a Strickland claim, “it is clear that appellant’s failure to forward relevant argumentation as to each necessary ‘individual facet’ of the Strickland standard dooms his boilerplate claims to failure.” Commonwealth v. Lambert, 568 Pa. 346, 797 A.2d 232, 243 (2001) (Opinion Announcing Judgment of Court (“OAJC”)). The OAJC elaborated: “Here, appellant’s arguments, at best, could be construed as attempting to establish the arguable merit of his underlying waived claims while he then simply assumes that the failure to pursue such claims automatically renders counsel ineffective. This per se approach to ineffectiveness fails to establish either the perform*344anee prong (ie., lack of reasonable basis) or the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Accordingly, the claims fail on the merits.” Id. at 243 n. 9.
-II-
Turning to Justice Saylor’s expression of concern respecting uneven treatment of similarly briefed claims, my own view follows.
-A-
The failure to brief necessary Strickland elements in a meaningful fashion unfortunately is not an uncommon phenomenon, and I realize that different cases have approached such claims in varying fashion. Especially in cases involving the Federal Defender,- the briefing failures are usually of a kind with the non-development here — ie., the brief identifies and outlines a defaulted claim and then simply declares that direct appeal counsel lacked a reasonable basis for failing to pursue the claim, and that prejudice resulted. In some instances, the Court has passed over the obvious briefing deficiency and rejected such claims because there was no merit in the underlying argument; but, in other cases, we have invoked the lack of development as a sufficient ground in itself to reject claims. In an ideal world, I suppose we could strive to treat all such claims in the same fashion in all cases. This would make sense given that our cases deeming undeveloped claims to be waived are not confined to criminal matters, or to Strickland claims; it is a rule of general applicability. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119; see, e.g., Purple Orchid, Inc. v. Pa. State Police, 572 Pa. 171, 813 A.2d 801, 804 (2002) (issue waived by failure to address and develop in appellate brief).
But, it is unrealistic to expect the various members of the Court to approach all cases, and all issues, in the same fashion, and the capital collateral appeals are particularly vexing — in large part because of strategic briefing decisions, such as I described in my concurrence in Steele. The prolix filings in many of the capital collateral appeals — as here, where appel*345lant poses seventeen numbered claims and innumerable sub-claims — are designed to be burdensome if for no other reason than to create delay. The more burdensome the brief, the more likely it is that efficiency of disposition will dictate that the failure to develop a claim in the brief will be chosen as the basis for disposition. There is nothing wrong with such an approach. Indeed, as Justice Ginsburg, writing for the unanimous Court in Walker v. Martin, explained:
We see no reason to reject California’s [state habeas corpus ] time bar simply because a court may opt to bypass the [timeliness] assessment and summarily dismiss a petition on the merits, if that is the easier path. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674] (1984) (“[A] court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient ... [i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice ... ”); cf. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 585 [119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760] (1999) (“It is hardly novel for a federal court to choose azzmong threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits.”)
— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1129, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011).
So long as the multiple available grounds for rejecting an ineffectiveness claim are legitimate in their own right, the Court is not bound to prefer one form of appropriate disposition over another; there is discretion in the assigned author to approach the particular assignment in what seems to be the most efficient manner for that case; and the assigned Justice’s instinct warrants a measure of deference.3
Indeed, I addressed this point at some length ten years ago:
[L]ike any legal claim, an ineffectiveness claim may fail on the merits for a number of independently valid reasons. So long as there is no jurisdictional question (i.e., the PCRA petition was timely filed), a court rejecting a particular PCRA claim is not required to prefer one proper ground of *346disposition over another. In [Commonwealth v.] Marrero, [561 Pa. 100, 748 A.2d 202 (2000),] this Court rejected layered, boilerplate claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness because it deemed the underlying claims of counsel ineffectiveness to be meritless, rather than focusing on the failure of the appellant to address other, equally necessary elements of the ineffectiveness standards. I view the Marrero disposition as an available and appropriate, but not a required and exclusive, approach to the merits of a renewable ineffectiveness claim. This is so because both the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court have made clear that a court is not required to analyze the elements of an ineffectiveness claim in any particular order of priority; instead, if a claim fails under any necessary element of the Strickland test, the court may proceed to that element first.
The more difficult question is what sort of a message this Court sends to PCRA petitioners and practitioners by choosing, or preferring, one available method of disposition over another. Appellant’s arguments in this case, like the non-argument forwarded in Marrero, at best may be construed as attempting to establish the arguable merit of her underlying waived claims while she then simply assumes that the failure to pursue such claims renders counsel per se ineffective. This per se approach to ineffectiveness fails to establish either the performance prong (i.e., lack of reasonable basis) or the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Accordingly, the claims must, inevitably, fail. The advantage of discussing the fatal deficiency in such an argument on the merits is that it reinforces for PCRA petitioners and practitioners alike the necessity that they address all necessary substantive elements of a claim in order to actually obtain relief on it, as opposed to the decidedly Pyrrhic victory that will result when a claim is undeveloped and survives waiver only as a matter of this Court’s grace. At least in cases where the substantive deficiency in the argument is pervasive, as in this case, I think we better serve by focusing on those substantive deficiencies, as the lead opinion has done here.
*347Commonwealth v. Rivers, 567 Pa. 239, 786 A.2d 923, 939 (2001) (Castille, J., concurring) (citations omitted; emphases original). The above-described preference did not represent a majority view and I, like other members of the Court, have since authored and joined opinions which have afforded some capital petitioners more than their due, by passing upon Strickland claims “on the merits,” despite the lack of necessary development in the brief.
Finally, along these lines, I would reiterate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that state procedural default rules involving discretion are entitled to deference on federal habeas corpus review, at least so long as they are neither designed, nor operate, to discriminate against federal claims or claimants. Walker, — U.S. at-, 131 S.Ct. at 1130. To the extent that this Court has afforded some petitioners more than their due in rejecting Strickland claims “on the merits” that we could just as easily and properly have rejected due to the failure to address necessary Strickland elements, we certainly have not discriminated against federal claims or claimants as a class. But, having said that, and cognizant of the litigation incentives for federal counsel to mischaracterize and demean our approach in capital cases, perhaps the Court should consider the position I outlined in Rivers, and always invoke Strickland briefing inadequacies where appropriate, and thereby reduce the incentive. Rivers, 786 A.2d at 937-39 (Castille, J., concurring); see Gibson, 951 A.2d at 1150 (Castille, C.J., joined by McCaffery, J., concurring) (“The threat of dismissive federal responses to flexible state procedural rules can lead to state legislatures and courts adopting ever-more inflexible rules.”); accord Walker, — U.S. at-, 131 S.Ct. at 1130.
-B-
The above observations speak to decisional options when an ineffectiveness claim fails. Obviously, different jurisprudential imperatives would be implicated if the Court were to grant relief (either outright, or in the form of a remand for an ineffectiveness hearing) on one insufficiently developed Strick*348land claim, while deeming waived other Strickland claims suffering from an identical lack of development in the briefing. But, in my view, that circumstance is not presented here. The claims that the Majority deems waived for lack of development in briefing are stand-alone claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness, while the single claim upon which the Majority remands is a layered claim (deriving from the failure of trial counsel to develop and present a stronger mitigation case at the penalty phase). In this layered claim, the underlying claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness is developed at some length in appellant’s brief, while the derivative claim concerning appellate counsel is, as Justice Saylor notes, developed in as perfunctory a fashion as are appellant’s stand-alone claims concerning appellate counsel. But, treating layered and stand-alone claims “differently” in this instance is appropriate, in my judgment, given this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. McGill, 574 Pa. 574, 832 A.2d 1014 (2003).
Layered Strickland claims are different from stand-alone claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness. With a standalone claim, the entire focus is upon the performance of appellate counsel, which triggers the special concerns outlined in cases such as Smith v. Robbins, supra. To prevail, the PCRA petitioner must show exactly how appellate counsel was ineffective, by offering additional evidence or controlling authority, missed by direct appeal counsel, that would have changed the appeal outcome; or by specifically alleging the winning claim or distinct legal theory that appellate counsel failed to recognize; and then by showing how the appeal, as pursued, was incompetent by comparison. In this case, with respect to all stand-alone claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness, appellant’s brief defaults to claiming that direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to “fully develop” claims on direct appeal. Boilerplate arguments such as these, which fail even to address those concerns that are peculiar to appellate advocacy, are properly deemed non-starters.
The treatment of layered Strickland claims, however, can be different in light of the transitional paradigm for that narrow sub-class of claims outlined in Commonwealth v. McGill. *349Where, as here, the deficiency in briefing the appellate counsel aspect of a layered claim replicates a deficiency in pleading that aspect of the claim before the PCRA court, and the PCRA court did not identify the pleading deficiency as the grounds for rejecting the claim, and thereby allow for amendment to address the deficiency, McGill teaches that we should pass through the deficiently developed appellate claim and assess the merits of the underlying, “nested” claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness. If that underlying claim has merit, we will remand; if it does not, we will reject the layered claim. McGill, 832 A.2d at 1023; Commonwealth v. Rush, 576 Pa. 3, 838 A.2d 651, 656 (2003). This remand jurisprudence remains viable today, in instances where an opportunity to amend PCRA pleadings concerning layered Strickland claims was not afforded. The Majority acknowledges and applies this jurisprudence by reviewing appellant’s layered claims by passing through to the merits of the underlying claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness.
I realize that appellant’s stand-alone claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness were not rejected by the PCRA court on grounds that they were insufficiently developed, and thus appellant was not afforded an opportunity to amend his pleadings below; I realize that appellant’s obviously insufficient merits briefing of those claims before this Court mirrors his perfunctory pleadings below; and I realize that appellant’s undeveloped arguments respecting these claims are little different from his manner of arguing the appellate counsel aspect of his layered Strickland claims. But, this Court has not adopted a McGill-like pass-through mechanism for standalone claims. McGill was adopted as a response to perceived confusion with respect to what is required to secure merits review in layered ineffectiveness cases. See McGill, 832 A.2d at 1021 (“The manner in which this construct [the Strickland/Pierce test] operates when a litigant is challenging the effectiveness of his or her immediate prior counsel is well settled. Causing uncertainty among the bench and bar, however, is how to preserve and prove a PCRA claim challenging the effectiveness of counsel other than immediate prior coun*350sel.”); accord Commonwealth v. Daniels, 600 Pa. 1, 963 A.2d 409, 419-20 (2009). Nor do I think we should adopt a special rule absolving PCRA petitioners of the necessity to properly develop stand-alone claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness; the requirements are federally commanded, well-settled, and easily found. And, finally, I believe that it is appropriate to cite to the lack of development of a stand-alone claim in the appellate briefing as the ground for disposition, even if a similar lack of development was not the ground cited by the PCRA court for rejecting the claim.

. Significantly, since Steele was decided, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued unanimous decisions in two federal habeas corpus cases involving state prisoners, including Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 612, 175 L.Ed.2d 417 (2009), a Pennsylvania capital case, which should significantly diminish the incentive for counsel to try to sow inconsistencies and confusion in state court procedural rulings, in an effort to lay the groundwork for a later federal habeas claim that state court procedural defaults should not be honored. "In a recent decision, Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 612, 175 L.Ed.2d 417 (2009), this Court clarified that a state procedural bar may count as an adequate and independent ground for denying a federal habeas petition even if the state court had discretion to reach the merits despite the default.” Walker v. Martin, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1125, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011). The Walker decision built upon and significantly expanded Kindler, making it clear that a state procedural default rule need not be invoked in every case in order for the rule to be deemed adequate.

. Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq.

. On the latter point, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110, 1148 (2008) (Castille, C.J., joined by McCaffery, J., concurring) (explaining reasons for joining remand).