Com. v. Dreese, D., Com. v. Dreese, D. No. 1370 MDA 2016

On Oct. 27, 2014 Dreese was convicted after a non-jury trial of simple assault and harassment arising from an altercation at his cabin; he was sentenced Jan. 23, 2015 to two years’ probation for simple assault.
On Sept. 18, 2014 Dreese signed a written jury-waiver form; the court did not conduct an on-the-record colloquy about the waiver.
Dreese filed a counseled PCRA petition asserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discuss the implications of waiving a jury trial; an evidentiary hearing was held June 14, 2016.
At the PCRA hearing Dreese testified he did not read the waiver, counsel handed him the form and asked him to sign, did not explain the rights or that the waiver was revocable, and he would have chosen a jury if fully informed.
Trial counsel (Bryant) testified he discussed jury vs. non-jury “briefly,” preferred a bench trial, gave Dreese the waiver form but did not review it in depth, and did not tell Dreese the waiver could be revoked.
The PCRA court credited Dreese’s testimony, granted relief as to the simple-assault conviction, and directed further pretrial proceedings; the Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court affirmed in part (simple assault) and reversed in part (harassment summary conviction) because Dreese was not serving a sentence on the harassment at the time of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to explain the implications of waiving a jury trial, rendering the waiver unknowing and involuntary	Dreese: counsel handed waiver to him, did not explain rights or revocability, had little jury experience, and would have demanded a jury if properly informed	Commonwealth/Bryant: counsel met with Dreese, discussed risks/benefits of jury vs. bench, and Dreese executed a written waiver so waiver was valid	Court: PCRA court credited Dreese; under totality of circumstances counsel was ineffective and Dreese showed prejudice — relief granted as to simple assault
Whether Dreese was eligible for PCRA relief on the harassment (summary) conviction	Dreese sought relief on both convictions	Commonwealth: Dreese was not serving a sentence on the harassment at the time of relief and thus not eligible	Court: Relief reversed as to harassment because petitioner was not serving a sentence on that summary conviction when PCRA relief was granted

Commonwealth v. Mallory, 941 A.2d 686 (Pa. 2008) (totality-of-circumstances test for challenges to written jury-waiver validity and prejudice standard for counsel ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA orders and deference to PCRA court credibility findings)
Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2016) (strict interpretation of PCRA eligibility requirement that petitioner be currently serving a sentence)
Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding PCRA relief unavailable for convictions where sentence has been completed)