Com. v. Pierce
Decision Date | 21 December 2001 |
Citation | 786 A.2d 203,567 Pa. 186 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Michael PIERCE, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Michael Pierce, pro se.
Ramy I. Djerassi, Philadelphia, for Michael Pierce as standby counsel.
Catherine Marshall, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth.
Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, for Office of Attorney General.
Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.
Michael Pierce(Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the denial of his first petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1We affirm.
We described the facts of Appellant's convictions for three counts of first-degree murder and related charges in our opinion on direct review as follows:
Commonwealth v. Pierce,537 Pa. 514, 645 A.2d 189, 192-94(1994).
At the conclusion of Appellant's trial on October 30, 1990, a jury convicted Appellant of three counts of first-degree murder, arson, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, and risking a catastrophe.Following a one-day penalty hearing, the jury sentenced Appellant to three concurrent death sentences for each first degree murder conviction, finding that the two aggravating circumstances, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6)( ) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(7)( ), outweighed the one mitigating factor, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(1)( ).Appellant obtained new counsel and filed post-verdict motions alleging trial counsel's ineffectiveness.The trial court denied these motions.On direct appeal, we affirmed Appellant's Judgment of Sentence.SeePierce, supra.
The present proceedings commenced when Appellant filed a pro sePCRA petition on October 5, 1994.The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an Amended Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief on June 28, 1995.Appellant, through his then counsel, Bernard Siegel, Esquire, filed a Supplement to Amended Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief on January 23, 1997 and a Second Supplement to Amended Motion for Post Conviction Relief on November 12, 1997.The PCRA court held multiple hearings regarding the status of Appellant's petition and his counsel's request that Appellant undergo psychiatric or psychological evaluation to explore potential PCRA issues concerning the effectiveness of prior counsel in developing mental health mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of Appellant's trial.The PCRA court permitted Appellant to retain a psychologist and held a hearing on July 30, 1997, at which Appellant was present and stated on the record his refusal to undergo psychological evaluation.2Because Appellant refused to cooperate with the presentation of any potential issues regarding the effectiveness of counsel in investigating possible mental health mitigation evidence, the PCRA court determined that no further evidentiary hearing was needed on Appellant's remaining PCRA claims and dismissed Appellant's petition on December 9, 1997.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to this...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Com. v. Bryant
... ... Commonwealth v. (Michael) Pierce, 567 Pa.186, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001) ; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724 A.2d 326, 333 (1999) ... A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim. ( Michael) Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 786 A.2d 203 ... 4 ... Review of ... ...
-
Com. v. Williams
... ... See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 203, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001); Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 312, 724 A.2d 326, 333 (1999); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (explaining that, to establish an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must ... ...
-
Com. v. Flanagan
... ... 854 A.2d 512 Commonwealth v. (Michael) Pierce, 567 Pa.186, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001) ; accord Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ... 27 Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the defendant ... ...
-
Com. v. Sattazahn
... ... See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 203, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (2001); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (explaining that, to establish an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiencies ... ...