Com. v. Caswell, T.
309 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- On 9/17/2015 Caswell confronted his neighbor, entered the neighbor’s home uninvited, and assaulted him; victim suffered significant facial injuries. Charges included aggravated assault, burglary, and others.
- On 2/29/2016 Caswell entered a negotiated guilty plea to burglary for a recommended 5–10 year sentence; the court accepted the plea after written and oral colloquies.
- Post‑sentence, Caswell (through plea counsel) filed a nunc pro tunc motion to withdraw the plea claiming coercion; the trial court held a hearing on 6/9/2016 and denied the motion, crediting plea counsel’s testimony and the plea colloquy.
- Caswell did not file a direct appeal; he filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for coercing the plea; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief on appeal and moved to withdraw.
- The PCRA court denied relief on the merits after incorporating the earlier hearing testimony; the Superior Court affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Caswell) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel coerced Caswell into an involuntary guilty plea | Counsel threatened a much longer sentence and rushed/pressured Caswell into pleading; Caswell lacked glasses and did not understand the colloquy | Record shows a thorough written and oral colloquy, counsel negotiated a better plea, and Caswell voluntarily admitted the factual basis on the record | Court held Caswell’s claim lacked arguable merit; plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent |
| Whether the PCRA petition was barred as previously litigated | N/A (Caswell argued merits) | Commonwealth argued Caswell already litigated ineffectiveness in the post‑sentence proceedings | Court held the issue was not previously litigated for PCRA purposes and denied dismissal on that ground |
| Whether counsel’s performance met the ineffective‑assistance standard for pleas (Turetsky three‑part test) | Counsel’s conduct undermined voluntariness of the plea | Counsel acted within professional competence and had strategic bases (negotiated better deal, reviewed plea form) | Court found Caswell failed to prove arguable merit on ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown |
| Whether appellate/PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley brief justified withdrawal | Caswell claimed counsel was ineffective for filing a Turner/Finley brief | Counsel complied substantially with Turner/Finley requirements and notified Caswell of rights; any procedural defect was cured | Court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw after independent review found the appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural guidance for no‑merit pleadings in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial compliance with Turner/Finley suffices)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (three‑part ineffective assistance test for plea challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Moser, 921 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2007) (plea involuntariness requires showing counsel’s advice caused an unknowing or involuntary plea)
- Commonwealth v. Fluharty, 632 A.2d 312 (Pa. Super. 1993) (totality of circumstances governs validity of guilty plea)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2011) (appellate deference to credibility findings of trial/PCRA court)