Com. v. E.G.
159 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Appellant E.G. pled guilty to rape of his then-10-year-old daughter on January 13, 2009, and was sentenced to 10–40 years' imprisonment.
- He filed multiple post-conviction and habeas motions between 2009 and 2016; direct appeal and earlier collateral appeals were unsuccessful.
- On November 4, 2016 E.G. moved for transcription of a November 22, 2010 PCRA hearing and for discovery of certain documents; the trial court ordered transcription but denied discovery on November 17, 2016.
- E.G. appealed pro se from the trial court’s partial grant/partial denial of his motion, raising five issues (ineffective assistance re: discovery, Fourth Amendment arrest/search claims, legality of blood draw warrant/service, and voluntariness of the victim’s statement) plus a sentencing challenge.
- The Superior Court found E.G.’s appellate brief substantially noncompliant with Pa.R.A.P. requirements (minimal argument, lack of legal citation, failure to organize issues) and that most issues were waived because they were either previously litigated, waived by the guilty plea, or not raised below.
- The Superior Court quashed the appeal for failure to meaningfully brief the issues and noted that discovery in PCRA matters is generally unavailable absent exceptional circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel ineffective for not providing discovery before/after sentencing | E.G. contends counsel failed to supply requested discovery | Commonwealth/trial court treated discovery request as untimely and not part of a proper PCRA showing | Waived; brief defective and claim not adequately developed; appeal quashed |
| Warrantless arrest in apartment violated Fourth Amendment | E.G. asserts detective arrested him without a warrant in his apartment | Commonwealth maintains procedural posture and record do not support relief; issues largely waived by plea | Waived and not addressed on merits due to defective briefing and procedural bars |
| Legality of warrant/consent for blood draw for DNA | E.G. challenges validity/service of warrant for blood draw | Commonwealth points to record and procedural default; claim not preserved | Waived and not reviewed because of briefing defects and plea waiver |
| Voluntariness of victim’s statement | E.G. contends daughter recanted or said no abuse occurred voluntarily | Commonwealth relies on guilty plea record and prior rulings; issue not preserved | Waived; substantive review barred by inadequate briefing and plea waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (issues inadequately briefed or undeveloped are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate mandates and briefing rules ensure uniform consideration of issues)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (procedural rules apply equally to represented and pro se litigants)
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (guilty plea waives all defects except plea validity, jurisdiction, and legality of sentence)