Commonwealth v. Petras, 368 Pa. Super. 372

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court addresses claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel following the appellant's conviction for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. The court rejects most claims but remands for an evidentiary hearing on whether counsel was ineffective for failing to interview or call a potentially exculpatory witness.

Holdings

1. The proffer established an arguable claim of ineffective assistance because Edwin C. existed, was available, was known or should have been known to counsel, was prepared to testify, and his testimony could have affected the outcome. The case was therefore remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
2. Counsel was not ineffective for using the victim's prior inconsistent statement through admission of the preliminary-hearing testimony rather than confronting the victim directly, or for declining further cross-examination of the police officers about date discrepancies, because those choices had an objectively reasonable tactical basis.
3. The claim failed because Petras did not specify how a bill of particulars or continuance would have improved his case, leaving the alleged benefit too vague and speculative to establish arguable merit or prejudice.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to information about prior sexual conduct that did not result in arrest or conviction. The prosecution properly used the information to rebut Petras's blanket denial, and, more generally, such information may be considered at sentencing when the sentencing court knows that it did not result in an arrest or conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview or call Edwin C. as a defense witness.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in impeaching the victim and cross-examining police officers concerning inconsistent dates for the alleged incident.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to demand a bill of particulars or request a continuance.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to uncharged prior sexual-conduct information included in the presentence report.

Disposition

remanded