252 A.3d 1159
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- July 8, 2014: Appellant Taroun Hand drove the wrong way, causing a four-vehicle crash that seriously injured two children.
- Officers arrested Hand at the scene; at the hospital he was read O'Connell warnings and consented to a blood draw, which revealed clonazepam and oxycodone.
- Hand moved to suppress the blood evidence; after the Supreme Court decided Birchfield (invalidating coerced consent), the trial court reconsidered and denied suppression, finding exigent circumstances (natural dissipation of intoxicants) supported a warrantless draw based on testimony including Officer Lackman’s estimate that obtaining a warrant would take many hours.
- Hand was convicted after a waiver trial of aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI and related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 5–10 years’ imprisonment.
- Hand filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective at the suppression hearing and at sentencing; the PCRA court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing, and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing | Hand: petition alleged facts that, if proven, entitled him to relief and warranted a hearing | PCRA court/Commonwealth: claims were meritless, previously litigated, or underdeveloped; no genuine factual dispute | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; claims waived or lacking merit |
| Whether counsel was ineffective at suppression for not objecting to Officer Lackman’s testimony about exigency | Hand: Lackman relied on inaccurate hypotheticals (e.g., aggravated assault) that did not apply here; counsel should have objected/cross-examined | Commonwealth: Lackman’s remarks were hypothetical/general; he did not rely on aggravated-assault charging here; counsel argued lack of exigency at trial; issue was litigated on direct appeal | No arguable merit; counsel not ineffective; claim barred or previously litigated |
| Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing by accepting incorrect offense gravity score (OGS) | Hand: lead offense’s OGS should be 7 (not 9); sentence excessive | Commonwealth/Trial Court: aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI carries OGS of 9 under the Sentencing Guidelines; sentencing calculation and counsel’s statements were correct | Claim lacks merit; sentencing/O G S calculation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (motorists cannot be treated as consenting to blood tests on pain of criminal sanction)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials and evidentiary hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 839 A.2d 245 (Pa. 2003) (presumption that counsel was effective; three-part ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (reasonableness inquiry for counsel’s strategic decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436 (Pa. Super. 2018) (review standard for PCRA appeals)