Commonwealth v. Marshall

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims not raised at trial or on direct appeal were waived under the PCRA.
2. Whether Marshall's ineffective-assistance claim concerning the voluntariness of his confession was previously litigated because it merely repackaged a suppression claim decided on direct appeal.
3. Whether the PCRA court properly dismissed without a hearing claims that counsel was ineffective during the 1984 and 1990 penalty proceedings for failing to investigate or present mental-health and family mitigation evidence.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a diminished-capacity defense when Marshall consistently maintained his innocence.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach medical-examiner testimony concerning drowning as a contributing cause of death.
6. Whether the absence of sidebar and voir-dire transcripts established prejudice or denied meaningful appellate review.
7. Whether Marshall was entitled to relief because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allegedly failed to conduct meaningful proportionality review of his death sentence.
8. Whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors required post-conviction relief.

Holdings

1. Claims that could have been raised before trial, at trial, on direct appeal, or in a prior state post-conviction proceeding are waived under the PCRA and cannot support relief in a subsequent capital appeal.
2. A petitioner may not obtain PCRA review of a claim previously litigated on direct appeal by alleging ineffective assistance and presenting a new theory supporting the same underlying issue.
3. A PCRA court may dismiss an ineffective-assistance claim without an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner fails to plead and prove arguable merit, lack of a reasonable strategic basis, and prejudice, and the record presents no genuine issue of material fact.
4. A defendant cannot establish prejudice from counsel's failure to present additional evidence supporting a mitigating circumstance when the sentencing jury already found that mitigating circumstance based on evidence counsel presented.
5. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to pursue a diminished-capacity defense that would concede guilt when the defendant consistently maintains innocence and counsel presents an innocence defense.
6. A defendant seeking PCRA relief based on an incomplete record must identify a potentially meritorious issue that cannot be adequately reviewed because of the missing transcript; the mere absence of transcripts is insufficient.
7. Claims that lack merit individually cannot acquire merit collectively through cumulative-error analysis.

Key quotations

Factual background

Marshall was convicted of murdering Sharon Saunders, Myndi McKoy, and Karima Saunders. He received death sentences for the murders of McKoy and Saunders and a life sentence for Saunders; after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered a new penalty hearing for Karima Saunders, a jury again imposed death. In his PCRA petition, Marshall challenged the effectiveness of counsel and raised numerous previously unasserted claims concerning jury selection, trial evidence, instructions, prosecutorial conduct, sentencing, and the completeness of the record.

Procedural history

Marshall was convicted in 1984 of three first-degree murders and received two death sentences and one life sentence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed two judgments and vacated one death sentence for a new penalty hearing; after the retrial penalty hearing, it affirmed the remaining death sentence. Marshall later filed a PCRA petition, which the PCRA court dismissed without a hearing, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.