Com. v. Barnes, M.
Com. v. Barnes, M. No. 149 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- Marquis Barnes pled guilty in two separate Erie County cases to firearms not to be carried without a license (dockets 2708-2014 and 771-2015) and received consecutive 30–60 month sentences.
- Barnes filed timely post-conviction PCRA petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel related to plea, sentencing, and appellate rights.
- At sentencing the judge referenced multiple pending charges (drug, assault, receiving stolen property, another firearms charge, and driving offenses) and stated they were not convictions but showed ongoing criminal activity.
- Barnes claimed counsel failed to (a) challenge the court’s use of pending charges as sentencing factors, (b) move to reconsider after one pending charge was later dismissed, (c) properly advise him about likely sentence length inducing a plea, (d) challenge alleged defects in the plea colloquy, and (e) move to merge the two dockets for concurrent sentencing.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 intent to dismiss; the Superior Court reviewed the dismissal and affirmed, rejecting each ineffectiveness claim.
Issues
| Issue | Barnes' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing court abused discretion by considering Barnes’ pending charges | Sentencing relied on unrelated open cases and thus abused discretion | Judge properly stated the status of pending charges and did not treat them as convictions | No abuse; court complied with Thomas and acted within discretion |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file reconsideration after one pending charge was dismissed | Dismissal removed a sentencing factor and counsel should have sought reconsideration | Other pending charges remained and supported sentencing; no prejudice shown | No arguable merit; dismissal of one charge did not undermine sentence |
| Whether counsel misled Barnes about expected sentence length, inducing plea | Counsel promised a much shorter sentence (12–24 or 18–36 months) than imposed | Plea colloquy and written waiver refute any promise; record controls | No relief; plea record (written and oral) contradicts claim per Cappelli |
| Whether counsel failed to challenge deficiencies in plea colloquy or appeal a defective plea | Counsel should have raised colloquy defects and taken an appeal | Colloquy addressed required elements and Barnes signed written colloquy; no defective plea | No relief; plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent under Morrison |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to merge dockets for sentencing | Merger would have prevented consecutive exposure and reduced sentence | Offenses occurred in separate incidents; merger inapplicable under Baldwin and §9765 | No relief; merger not permitted because crimes arose from separate acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 483 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. 1984) (sentencing judge may consider arrests/pending charges if judge makes record of their status and does not treat them as convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (standards for proving ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Cappelli, 489 A.2d 813 (Pa. Super. 1985) (claim that counsel promised a lesser sentence is defeated by plea colloquy record)
- Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (plea validity assessed by totality of circumstances; colloquy must cover six areas but minor omissions examined in context)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (merger for sentencing allowed only where crimes arise from single criminal act and elements overlap)