Com. v. Cave, S.
271 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- On Nov. 11, 2014, state troopers stopped a car for speeding; Appellant Cave was a passenger.
- A K-9 alerted to narcotics and entered the vehicle; a subsequent warrant search recovered ~12 pounds of suspected marijuana and baggies; Cave admitted ownership and was arrested for possession with intent to deliver (PWID).
- Cave retained private (plea) counsel, who advised that a suppression motion likely would fail because Cave lacked an expectation of privacy in the vehicle; Cave pleaded guilty to PWID on July 16, 2015 and was sentenced Dec. 18, 2015 to 18–60 months.
- Cave filed a pro se PCRA petition (Aug. 19, 2016) alleging ineffective assistance for failing to file a suppression motion and that his plea was coerced or that he thought he pled to simple possession.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw; the court granted withdrawal, found Cave’s claims meritless, but—contrary to Rule 907—notified Cave and proceeded to an evidentiary hearing where plea counsel testified; the court denied relief.
- Cave appealed pro se; the Superior Court found his appellate brief undeveloped and largely conclusory, deemed many claims waived, and affirmed the PCRA court's denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cave) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop/search violated Fourth Amendment and suppression should have been filed | Stop/search illegal; counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress | Counsel reasonably concluded suppression would fail because Cave lacked expectation of privacy; claim meritless | Denied — no merit to suppression claim; counsel not ineffective |
| Whether plea was coerced or Cave misunderstood plea (thought it was simple possession) | Plea coerced and Cave believed he pled to simple possession | Written plea form and thorough colloquy established plea was knowing and for PWID; no coercion | Denied — plea was voluntary and informed |
| Whether PCRA court erred by allowing counsel to withdraw without Rule 907 notice and by conducting hearing without counsel for Cave | Procedural irregularity; right to counsel at evidentiary hearing | PCRA court granted withdrawal properly; although Rule 907 notice was not given before continuing, Cave did not preserve or press a Rule 907 challenge on appeal | Denied — any Rule 907 defect waived; outcome not affected because claims meritless |
| Whether appellate brief preserved and developed claims for review | Cave asserts multiple constitutional and due process errors | Appellant’s brief was conclusory, undeveloped, and cited law without applying it to facts | Claims waived for inadequate briefing; appellate review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa. 1998) (issues waived when appellant fails to properly explain or develop them)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in collateral proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit/withdrawal standards for counsel in post‑conviction matters)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 93 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2014) (claims lacking developed argument or record support are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to challenge absence of Rule 907 notice constitutes waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 907 notice is mandatory but may be waived if not objected to)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (appellate courts will not serve as appellant's counsel; pro se filings must still develop issues)