Commonwealth v. Ford

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Kenneth Ford was entitled to a new penalty-phase hearing under the Post Conviction Relief Act. The court concluded that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence concerning Ford's history of abuse, mental illness, and dysfunction, and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that issue. The court reversed the PCRA court's order denying relief and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

Holdings

1. Claims decided on direct appeal are previously litigated under the PCRA, and claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not are waived. Recasting previously litigated or waived claims as ineffective-assistance claims does not make them reviewable when the ineffectiveness allegations are undeveloped.
2. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present available mitigating evidence concerning Ford's history of abuse, mental illness, and dysfunction.
3. Ford demonstrated a reasonable probability that the penalty-phase result would have been different had the jury received the available mitigation evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ford's claims that had been previously litigated on direct appeal or could have been raised there were cognizable under the PCRA.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present available mitigating evidence concerning Ford's history of abuse, mental illness, and dysfunction at the penalty phase.
3. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness regarding the lack of penalty-phase mitigation.
4. Whether the failure to present the mitigation evidence prejudiced Ford by creating a reasonable probability of a different penalty-phase result.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded