Com. v. Blackstone, S.
1327 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- In 2001 Stephen Blackstone committed multiple armed robberies; a jury convicted him of three robberies, burglary, and being a former convict not to possess a firearm; original aggregate sentence 50–100 years (2002).
- Blackstone pursued multiple PCRA petitions and appeals; earlier PCRA proceedings resulted in vacatur of counsel’s withdrawal and resentencing in 2009 to 40–80 years, including a mandatory 10–20 year term under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 for one robbery count.
- Blackstone filed the current pro se PCRA petition in 2011 raising layered ineffective-assistance claims (challenge to trial and PCRA counsel), sentencing-guideline errors (prior record score application and alleged double-counting), statutory/constitutional challenges to § 9714, and alleged inaccuracies in the PSI and juvenile record.
- The PCRA court denied relief in 2015; Blackstone appealed pro se. This Court treated claims arising from the 2009 resentencing as timely but held many of the layered claims untimely or waived.
- The Superior Court affirmed: layered ineffective-assistance claims tied to the original judgment were time-barred or waived; resentencing-related claims lacked arguable merit or prejudice and did not warrant relief or an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blackstone) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Layered ineffective assistance for failing to challenge trial counsel re: severance of firearms charge | Shreve should have amended the first PCRA to allege trial counsel gave bad advice about severance and failed to preserve severance request; this prejudiced Blackstone | Claims relate to original judgment final in 2004; Blackstone’s petition raising those layered claims (filed 2011) is untimely and, alternatively, waived because not raised when counsel sought to withdraw | Dismissed as untimely/waived; no jurisdiction to consider layered claims |
| 2. Trial court lacked jurisdiction on third robbery count (dismissed at preliminary hearing) | Trial counsel ineffective for not moving to have the record reflect which charges were bound over; conviction on count that was dismissed is illegal | Same timeliness/waiver analysis; issue pertains to original judgment and is time-barred/waived | Dismissed as untimely/waived |
| 3. Sentencing guideline error: prior record score (PRS) applied to each count instead of only highest-gravity offense | Blackstone: under guidelines, PRS should have been zeroed for remaining offenses; Shreve ineffective for not objecting | Applicable Sentencing Guidelines were the 5th Edition (in effect in 2001) which did not contain the language Blackstone relies on; claim lacks arguable merit | Denied — no arguable merit; counsel not ineffective |
| 4. Double-counting and challenge to § 9714 application/constitutionality | Blackstone: court impermissibly double-counted prior convictions/lack of amenability; § 9714 legislative intent/constitutionality should limit aggregate sentence; Shreve ineffective for not litigating | Court imposed a mandatory minimum on one robbery count per § 9714 and permissibly exercised discretion to order consecutive sentences; sentencing court did not rely solely on prior record to aggravate; no arguable merit or prejudice | Denied — claim lacks merit; previously litigated aspects waived |
| 5. Inaccuracies in PSI and reliance on juvenile records; counsel ineffective for not correcting or seeking new PSI | PSI contained factual errors and referenced juvenile matters; counsel should have corrected errors and prevented reliance on juvenile adjudications | Record shows resentencing court used the same, previously available PSI; alleged discrepancies were minor, rebutted by record, or not relied upon; Blackstone had prior opportunity to challenge; no prejudice shown | Denied — no meritorious inaccuracies that would change outcome; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackett v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness and jurisdiction principles)
- Pitts v. Commonwealth, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (preserving challenges to PCRA counsel in response to no-merit letter/withdrawal)
- DeHart v. Commonwealth, 730 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 1999) (effect of PCRA relief limited to sentence on finality/serial petitions)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 950 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2008) (presumption counsel effective; standard for ineffectiveness)
- Kimball v. Commonwealth, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (three-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (threshold of arguable merit and reasonable basis for counsel’s strategy)
- Chambers v. Commonwealth, 807 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2002) (prejudice standard in ineffectiveness claims)
- Kerstetter v. Commonwealth, 580 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Super. 1990) (sentencing court must resolve challenged PSI inaccuracies)
- Shugars v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (limits on increasing sentence based solely on factors already in guidelines)
- Maneval v. Commonwealth, 688 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 1997) (applicable sentencing guidelines are those in effect when offense committed)
- Wrecks v. Commonwealth, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary sentencing claims are not cognizable on PCRA)
- Ford v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Hardcastle v. Commonwealth, 701 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA hearing not required absent genuine dispute of material fact)
- Poplawski v. Commonwealth, 852 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super. 2004) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 2007) (same)
- Beshore v. Commonwealth, 916 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (arguments inadequately developed on appeal may be waived)