Com. v. Canales-Tapia, J.
Com. v. Canales-Tapia, J. No. 1143 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Jefran Canales-Tapia pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery on Dec. 18, 2013; homicide and related charges were withdrawn as part of the plea.
- On Feb. 12, 2014, the trial court sentenced him to 75 to 240 months’ imprisonment (aggravated range).
- Appellant directly appealed the discretionary aspects of his sentence; the Superior Court affirmed on the merits.
- Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition (Jan. 5, 2016); counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit motion and was permitted to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss; Appellant responded but the petition was dismissed on March 16, 2016.
- Appellant appealed pro se, arguing (1) the trial court improperly based his sentence on his co-defendant’s crime and (2) ineffective assistance by direct-appeal and PCRA counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated constitutional rights by sentencing Appellant based on co-defendant’s crime | Canales-Tapia: sentencing court relied improperly on the homicide (for which he was not convicted) to impose an aggravated-range sentence | Commonwealth: court may consider unprosecuted criminal conduct if evidence links defendant to it; discretionary-sentence review already rejected this claim | Rejected — claim was previously litigated on appeal and discretionary-sentencing claims are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings |
| Whether direct-appeal counsel was ineffective for not citing case law supporting the sentencing challenge | Canales-Tapia: appellate counsel’s brief lacked supporting authority, amounting to ineffective assistance | Commonwealth: counsel’s argument tracked the claim; the cited authority would not have changed outcome; no prejudice shown | Rejected — no arguable prejudice; counsel not ineffective |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing a Turner/Finley no-merit instead of litigating appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness | Canales-Tapia: PCRA counsel should have litigated prior counsel’s ineffectiveness and the sentencing claim | Commonwealth: prior claim lacked merit; counsel need not pursue meritless claims | Rejected — counsel not ineffective for withdrawing on meritless claims |
| Whether appellate re-argument based on new theories in PCRA is permitted | Canales-Tapia: advances new theory to relitigate sentencing issue | Commonwealth: PCRA cannot be used to relitigate previously litigated claims under new theories | Rejected — cannot obtain PCRA review of claims previously litigated on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 872 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2005) (bars relitigation of claims previously litigated on appeal by presenting new theories on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary aspects of sentence not cognizable in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. 2006) (unprosecuted criminal conduct may be considered at sentencing if evidentiary proof links defendant to conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 2009) (appellate-counsel deficiency requires showing of prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2006) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)
- Commonwealth v. Stufflet, 469 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 1983) (sentence must be vacated if court relied in whole or in part on impermissible consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (co-conspirator liability: conspirators responsible for acts in furtherance of the conspiracy)