Com. v. Bogle, F.
495 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Floyd C. Bogle was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and PIC for the 2007 fatal stabbing of his father and sentenced to life in prison; direct appeals were denied through the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance by trial, appellate, and PCRA counsel, and sought a hearing; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and later withdrew.
- Key factual dispute centers on whether plea counsel misadvised or failed to inform Bogle that a first-degree murder conviction carries life without parole, leading him to reject an open nolo contendere plea to third-degree murder (20–40 years possible).
- Other claims included trial counsel’s failure to call psychiatrist Dr. Hume (and the resulting waiver of the defendant’s own testimony), alleged inconsistent jury verdict/double jeopardy error, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during opening/closing statements.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; the Superior Court affirmed in part but remanded solely to appoint counsel and hold a hearing on plea-counsel effectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance in plea bargaining (layered claim) | Bogle says trial counsel failed to correct the trial court’s erroneous statement that first-degree murder carries 25 years–life and failed to inform him about mandatory life without parole, so he would have accepted the plea | PCRA court relied on plea colloquy suggesting Bogle understood sentencing differences; record did not show counsel’s deficient performance or that Bogle would have accepted the plea | REMANDED: Evidentiary hearing ordered on plea-counsel effectiveness (issue has arguable merit but factual questions require live testimony) |
| 2) Failure to call psychiatrist / waiver of right to testify | Bogle says counsel agreed to present the psychiatrist so he could avoid testifying; failure to call Dr. Hume prevented his testimony strategy and counsel was ineffective | Record shows defense announced it would present no evidence and Bogle executed a waiver colloquy; defense theory was not a mental‑health justification and Dr. Hume’s testimony wouldn’t have allowed hearsay statements | DENIED: Claim without merit; no layered ineffectiveness established |
| 3) Inconsistent verdicts / double jeopardy | Bogle argues jury’s draft verdict (not guilty of third-degree murder) showed no finding of malice, so later guilty finding for first-degree murder is invalid and double jeopardy violated | Court inspected an unannounced draft and only instructed jury how to fill out the verdict slip; verdict had not been announced or recorded and court’s instruction corrected a clerical/confusion issue | DENIED: No double jeopardy violation; prosecution’s verdict recording after correction was proper |
| 4) Prosecutorial misconduct and denial of PCRA hearing | Bogle claims prosecutor expressed personal belief and prejudiced the jury; contends PCRA court should have held hearing on multiple factual claims | Remarks cited (e.g., “This is a horrible thing, killing your father”) were oratorical flair in context; jury instructions clarified counsel’s statements are not evidence; most claims lacked arguable merit | DENIED (except plea claim): No prejudice shown from prosecutor’s remarks; PCRA court properly declined hearings on meritless issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice framework when ineffective assistance leads a defendant to reject a plea and receive a harsher outcome at trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1970) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance extends to plea bargaining)
- Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014 (Pa. 2003) (requirements for pleading and proving layered ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Petteway, 847 A.2d 713 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may not send an acquittal back to the jury for reconsideration)
- Commonwealth v. Brightwell, 424 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 1981) (verdict not yet recorded may be amended/corrected)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (no evidentiary hearing required where ineffectiveness claim lacks arguable merit)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (need for evidentiary hearing when credibility determinations are essential)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (prosecutorial misconduct standard and prejudice inquiry)