Com. v. Clarke, R.
2738 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Rodney Clarke pled nolo contendere to multiple first-degree felony sexual offenses against two minor victims and was sentenced to an aggregate 15–30 years, to run concurrent with earlier IDSI sentences.
- Clarke did not file a post-sentence motion and therefore did not pursue a direct appeal; he later filed a PCRA petition raising multiple claims (ineffective assistance, sentencing legality, excessive sentence, misadvice about credit/start date, and plea agreement errors).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley letter addressing only some of Clarke’s claims; the PCRA court dismissed the petition.
- Clarke sought reinstatement of PCRA appellate rights; the PCRA court granted reinstatement but failed to appoint appellate counsel as it had indicated.
- The PCRA court later concluded plea counsel may have told Clarke his new sentence would begin on March 14, 2008 (creating a potential IAC claim) and recommended vacatur, appointment of new counsel, and an evidentiary hearing on that issue and other unaddressed claims.
- The Superior Court agreed remand was necessary to appoint counsel, allow further development/amendment of the PCRA petition, and hold an evidentiary hearing on the alleged sentencing-start-date advice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clarke) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is required on plea counsel’s alleged misadvice about when the sentence would commence | Clarke says counsel told him sentence would start Mar. 14, 2008, inducing plea; this is IAC and creates factual dispute warranting a hearing | Commonwealth contends no entitlement to PCRA appellate counsel and questions sufficiency of claim | Court: Remand for evidentiary hearing on the retroactive-sentencing-advice IAC claim and appointment of new counsel |
| Whether the PCRA court must appoint appellate counsel after reinstating PCRA appellate rights | Clarke asserts court promised counsel and failed to appoint; needs counsel to pursue claims on appeal | Commonwealth argues Clarke was not technically entitled to PCRA appellate counsel | Court: PCRA court should determine if it promised counsel; Superior Court remanded to appoint counsel in interests of justice |
| Whether various sentencing claims (consecutive vs concurrent; second‑strike treatment; guideline deviation; Alleyne challenge) are waived | Clarke asserts multiple sentencing errors and constitutional challenges that merit review | Commonwealth asserts many claims were waived because not raised on direct appeal | Court: Remanded so newly appointed counsel may review and litigate unaddressed PCRA claims; waiver questions for PCRA court to address on remand |
| Whether PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley handling (limited Finley letter) precludes fuller review of Clarke’s claims | Clarke contends counsel addressed only some claims; fuller advocacy needed | Commonwealth relies on Finley procedure sufficiency | Court: Agreed remand and new counsel are appropriate so unaddressed claims can be fully explored |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court findings when supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA hearing not required absent genuine issue of material fact)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate review requires examining each PCRA issue against certified record)
- Commonwealth v. Grove, 170 A.3d 1127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (PCRA court may deny hearing where claims are patently frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for dismissing patently frivolous PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (purpose of PCRA hearing is to resolve actual conflicts, not fishing expeditions)
- Commonwealth v. Kenney, 732 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1999) (Superior Court must remand when record insufficient for adjudication)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for court-appointed PCRA counsel and Finley letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures when PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw and files an appellate letter)