Com. v. Croak, J., 2938 EDA 2015

Background

Appellant James Croak was convicted at trial of being a person not to possess firearms and possession of a small amount of marijuana (Docket No. 3924-2013) and pleaded guilty to drug-related charges (Docket No. 3014-2013). He received an aggregate sentence of 5–10 years imprisonment (firearms sentence concurrent with drug sentence).
Croak filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging constitutional violations and ineffective assistance of counsel but provided no factual specifics or citations to the record.
The court appointed PCRA counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley “no merit” letter and sought to withdraw; the Commonwealth answered. The court issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss and permitted Croak additional time to identify any omitted claims.
Croak failed to file an amended pro se PCRA petition after counsel withdrew and did not specify the omitted claims when given extensions, so the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing.
On appeal Croak argues trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a suppression motion for the warrantless entry/seizure of the gun and for failing to object to testimony about his post-arrest silence; he also asks that waiver be excused because he filed pro se and relies on Martinez v. Ryan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the firearm seized in an alleged illegal warrantless entry	Croak: counsel should have filed suppression motion challenging illegal warrantless entry/seizure	Commonwealth/PCRA court: claim was not raised in the pro se PCRA petition or Rule 1925(b) statement and thus waived	Waived: claims not raised in PCRA petition or 1925(b) are waived on appeal; dismissal affirmed
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony referring to Croak’s post-arrest silence	Croak: counsel failed to object to impermissible reference to post-arrest silence	Commonwealth/PCRA court: same procedural default—claim was not properly raised below	Waived: appellate review barred for failure to raise in PCRA/1925(b)
Whether Croak’s pro se status excuses the procedural waiver	Croak: his filings should be liberally construed to include the suppression claim	Commonwealth/PCRA court: pro se status does not confer special benefits; petition lacked specificity and did not fairly notify the court of the gun-suppression claim	Rejected: court will not supply omitted factual/legal specificity; liberal construction did not salvage the omitted claims
Whether Martinez v. Ryan excuses Croak’s procedural waiver caused by PCRA counsel’s failure	Croak: Martinez should permit excuse of waiver where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective	Commonwealth/PCRA court: Martinez creates a federal habeas safety valve but does not change state-law waiver where petitioner was given opportunity to amend and failed to do so	Rejected: waiver not excused because Croak himself failed to file an amended petition when given the chance; Martinez defense preserved only for federal habeas context

Key Cases Cited

Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1302 (U.S. 2012) (federal habeas may excuse procedural default of ineffective-assistance claims when initial-review collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (discussing Martinez’s impact on Pennsylvania procedural-default rules and declining to alter state law)
Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (issues not raised in PCRA petition are waived on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119 (Pa. 2013) (issues not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se filings are liberally construed but pro se status does not confer special benefits)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to raise ineffective-assistance claim after Rule 907 notice results in waiver)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standards of review for PCRA dismissals)