Com. v. Bundy, K., Com. v. Bundy, K. No. 1419 WDA 2016

On March 17, 2015, Kaream S. Bundy pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to three counts of possession with intent to deliver; on April 8, 2015 he received an aggregate sentence of 42 to 108 months. No direct appeal was filed.
On August 21, 2015 Bundy timely filed a pro se PCRA petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea; counsel was later appointed and an amended petition filed.
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on August 30, 2016 and denied relief by order and opinion entered September 1, 2016. Bundy timely appealed.
Bundy’s sole claim was ineffective assistance of counsel: trial counsel allegedly failed to request discovery before Bundy entered the negotiated plea, preventing a knowing and voluntary plea.
At the PCRA hearing, trial counsel (Arthur McQuillan) did not testify; PCRA counsel asked to continue to subpoena him but Bundy declined the continuance and proceeded without his testimony.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition because Bundy failed to establish that counsel lacked a reasonable basis for not requesting discovery; this appeal affirms that dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting discovery before a negotiated guilty plea	Bundy: counsel’s failure to request discovery deprived him of the information needed to enter a knowing, voluntary plea	Commonwealth: Bundy failed to elicit trial counsel’s testimony at the PCRA hearing to show counsel lacked a reasonable basis; absence of such testimony is fatal to the claim	Court: Affirmed—Bundy failed to meet his burden because he did not present counsel’s testimony to show lack of reasonable basis or prejudice

Benner v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
Perry v. Commonwealth, 128 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA review principles)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 5 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2010) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance)
Koehler v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (failure to elicit trial counsel testimony at PCRA hearing is fatal to ineffectiveness claim)
Lesko v. Commonwealth, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (trial strategy decisions require counsel testimony to rebut ineffectiveness claim)
Puksar v. Commonwealth, 951 A.2d 267 (Pa. 2008) (importance of questioning trial counsel at PCRA hearing)
Ervin v. Commonwealth, 766 A.2d 859 (Pa. Super. 2000) (rejecting claim where PCRA petitioner did not question counsel about strategy)
Cam Ly v. Commonwealth, 980 A.2d 61 (Pa. 2009) (failure to satisfy one prong of ineffectiveness test requires rejection)