Com. v. Dowell, R.
Com. v. Dowell, R. No. 2672 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Dowell pled guilty in two cases arising from a September 22, 2010 shooting: one plea to third-degree murder (Ray Roman) and related conspiracy and firearms counts; a second plea to attempted murder and conspiracy (Xavier Roman).
- Dowell’s pleas were based on his post-arrest confession admitting he and an accomplice fired into a vehicle, striking Xavier and killing Ray.
- Sentences: at No. 471-2011, 20–40 years (third-degree murder) plus consecutive 5–10 years (conspiracy); at No. 473-2011, 10–20 years (attempted murder) plus concurrent 10–20 years (conspiracy).
- Dowell did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; he filed a timely pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel and sentencing errors.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition after counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and the court issued a Rule 907 notice; Dowell appealed pro se and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dowell) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Plea counsel ineffective for failure to request a PSI/pre‑sentence inquiry | Counsel should have ensured a PSI or sufficient inquiry under Pa.R.Crim.P. 702 | Claim was undeveloped on appeal and not raised properly below; waived | Waived for inadequate development and not preserved below |
| 2. Plea counsel ineffective for advising not to go to trial | Counsel coerced plea by advising against trial despite Dowell wanting to face accuser | Issue not developed or raised below; evidence of guilt was overwhelming | Waived; would lack merit given confession and potential co‑defendant testimony |
| 3. Sentence excessive / counsel failed to negotiate lower term | Counsel should have negotiated 15–30 years rather than the agreed 25–50 years | Claim inadequately developed and not raised below | Waived for inadequate development and preservation failures |
| 4. Double jeopardy / merger challenge to two conspiracy convictions and consecutive sentencing | Two conspiracy counts arose from a single purpose and thus should merge | Double jeopardy claim here is a sufficiency question; guilty plea waived sufficiency challenges | Dismissed: claim barred by guilty plea waiver; treated as sufficiency issue and not reviewable on PCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal/no‑merit letter in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural guidance for appellate counsel seeking withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2016) (elements required to prove ineffectiveness of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 768 A.2d 309 (Pa. 2001) (double jeopardy conspiracy claim is intertwined with sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Rounsley, 717 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 1998) (guilty plea waives challenges to sufficiency of the evidence)