Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviews a PCRA claim alleging ineffective assistance by violation-of-probation counsel for failing to preserve challenges to the sentence, including the failure to state sentencing reasons on the record. The court holds that presumed prejudice under Cronic does not apply because counsel's omissions narrowed, but did not completely foreclose, appellate review. The court applies the Strickland/Pierce actual-prejudice standard and reverses and remands for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Presumed prejudice under Cronic does not apply merely because counsel failed to preserve a Rule 708 sentencing objection and thereby narrowed the issues available on appeal. The petitioner must prove actual prejudice under the Strickland/Pierce standard.
2. The relevant Strickland prejudice inquiry is whether filing a motion to reconsider, or making the Rule 708 objection at the sentencing hearing, would have produced a different and more favorable outcome in the underlying violation-of-probation sentencing proceeding—not merely whether the omission impaired appellate review.
3. The Superior Court erred by failing to analyze the performance of violation-of-probation appellate counsel in the layered ineffectiveness claim.
4. Reaves failed to prove actual Strickland/Pierce prejudice from counsel's failure to pursue a Rule 708 objection, so the Superior Court erred in granting sentencing relief on that basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to object to a violation-of-probation court's failure to state sentencing reasons require proof of actual prejudice under Strickland and Pierce or permit presumed prejudice under Cronic.
2. Whether the Superior Court improperly measured Strickland prejudice by the effect of counsel's omission on appellate issue preservation rather than by whether the underlying violation-of-probation sentencing proceeding would have produced a more favorable result.
3. Whether the Superior Court improperly granted relief without analyzing the performance of appellate counsel in the layered ineffectiveness claim.
4. Whether the case should be remanded for consideration of Reaves's additional sentencing-related ineffectiveness claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded