Com. v. Buttolph, S.
Com. v. Buttolph, S. No. 891 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- In 1992 Steven V. Gosline was found murdered at an adult bookstore; evidence included cigarette butts with a partial DNA profile and later statements implicating Steven Buttolph (Appellant).
- Appellant was first arrested in the 1990s; charges were dropped after his then-wife Marcie refused to testify. In 2008 she cooperated with police; recorded calls and statements implicated Appellant.
- Appellant was arrested in 2009 and after pretrial litigation (including a suppression motion) proceeded to a jury selection in April 2014.
- On May 1, 2014 Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder in exchange for dismissal of other charges and a recommended sentence of 10–20 years; the plea court conducted an on-the-record colloquy and accepted the plea.
- Post-plea, Appellant filed pro se and counsel-filed post-conviction actions (PCRA). The PCRA court granted additional time to respond to counsel’s Turner/Finley no‑merit letter but denied reinstatement of direct appeal; it later dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition.
- This appeal concerns (1) quashal of an interlocutory appeal from the PCRA court’s September 17, 2015 order, and (2) affirmation of the PCRA court’s March 22, 2016 dismissal of the PCRA petition challenging plea voluntariness and counsel effectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buttolph) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court/counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the September 17, 2015 order was appealable | Appellant appealed denial of reinstatement of direct appeal and request for more time | Order was interlocutory and did not dispose of all claims | Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether plea colloquy was defective (lack of elements/factual basis) | Plea involuntary/unknowing because court did not state all elements (malice) or factual basis | Plea colloquy and written colloquy, plus totality of circumstances, showed Appellant understood charges and admitted killing; counsel thoroughly advised him | Court held plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Whether counsel coerced or misled Appellant via plea terms (parole recommendation) | Term promising DA would not oppose parole was coercive or an unfulfillable promise | DA may recommend to parole board; term not coercive; counsel’s advice to accept plea was reasonable | No ineffective assistance; term permissible and not a threat |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in pretrial preparation, failing to obtain recordings/transcripts, or failing to pursue appeal/post-sentence motions | Counsel failed to obtain audio/transcripts, did inadequate preparation, delayed, and failed to file post-sentence/ direct appeal properly | Counsel obtained discovery, sought continuances to assemble voluminous records, represented Appellant through plea/sentencing; any pro se post-sentence filing was null while counsel represented him; Appellant cannot show prejudice because he pled on eve of trial and has no meritorious, preserved issue | PCRA court’s dismissal affirmed: Appellant failed to show deficient performance causing prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial or prevailed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Barndt v. Commonwealth, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims related to guilty pleas require showing plea was involuntary because of counsel’s performance)
- Kpou v. Commonwealth, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (plea colloquy adequacy judged by totality of the circumstances; defendant presumed aware when pleading)
- Franklin v. Commonwealth, 990 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for proving ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa. Super. 2004) (raising an excessive number of issues in Rule 1925(b) can waive issues)
- Morrison v. Commonwealth, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court’s failure to list crime elements does not alone invalidate plea where totality shows defendant understood charges)
- Reaves v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (attorney’s failure to file post‑sentence motion affects preservation but not necessarily appellate review; prejudice must be shown)
- Rosado v. Commonwealth, 150 A.3d 425 (Pa. 2016) (clarifies effect of counsel failures on issue waiver and preservation)
- Timchak v. Commonwealth, 69 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2013) (to show prejudice from plea counsel errors, defendant must show reasonable probability he would have gone to trial)