Com. v. Adams, T.
1221 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- In 1998 Adams was convicted of statutory sexual assault and was subject to Megan’s Law registration when released.
- In 2011 Adams pled guilty to Failure to Comply with Megan’s Law registration requirements in exchange for a 5–10 year sentence; he expressed hesitation but affirmed proceeding with plea at the colloquy.
- Two days after sentencing Adams sent a handwritten letter to the court asking to withdraw his plea and requesting new counsel; no formal motion to withdraw was filed then.
- Adams filed a PCRA petition in 2011 claiming plea counsel was ineffective for helping the Commonwealth and for not filing a motion to withdraw the plea; a hearing was held at which both Adams and plea counsel testified.
- Plea counsel testified he received the forwarded letter, contacted Adams, and Adams told him he did not wish to withdraw the plea; the PCRA court found counsel’s account credible and dismissed the petition.
- Adams later sought reinstatement of appellate rights; after proceedings the court reinstated appeal rights and Adams appealed the PCRA denial; PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and moved to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to withdraw the guilty plea | Adams: counsel failed to move to withdraw his plea despite Adams’ post‑sentencing letter requesting withdrawal and asserting innocence | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel contacted Adams after receiving the letter; Adams declined to withdraw the plea, so counsel reasonably refrained from filing a motion | Denied — counsel had a reasonable basis (acted consistent with Adams’ expressed decision); ineffectiveness claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedure for counsel withdrawal via no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedural standards for no‑merit PCRA counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (SORNA registration provisions held punitive; retroactive application violates ex post facto)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (three‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (burden on appellant to prove ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 861 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004) (counsel not ineffective for following client’s wishes)