Com. v. Hartleb, R.
1823 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- In 2013 Hartleb was convicted by jury on multiple counts (terroristic threats, simple assault, possession of an instrument of a crime, carrying a firearm without a license) arising from a bar incident; separately he pled guilty to reckless endangerment and carrying a firearm without a license for a January 2013 shooting incident.
- Trial counsel moved to consolidate sentencing; the court consolidated and imposed an aggregate 6 to 14 year sentence across two dockets; Hartleb’s post-sentencing motion to make one sentence concurrent was denied and he appealed; the Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Hartleb filed a pro se motion alleging illegal sentences and errors in prior-record-score and offense-gravity-score calculations; the trial court treated it as a PCRA petition and appointed counsel.
- PCRA counsel filed a supplement and a letter that ambiguously addressed some claims and suggested others lacked merit, but did not comply with Turner/Finley procedural requirements for withdrawal or clearly advocate the claims.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 intent to dismiss; after dismissal Hartleb appealed pro se. The Superior Court found PCRA counsel failed to satisfy Turner/Finley and directed counsel either to file a proper no-merit motion complying with Turner/Finley or to file an advocate’s brief within 30 days; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel complied with Turner/Finley when seeking withdrawal or refusing to press claims | Hartleb argued his sentence calculations and guideline scoring were incorrect and that counsel failed to object to PSI/sentencing calculations | PCRA counsel treated some claims as meritless in a supplement/letter and did not file a formal Turner/Finley no-merit brief or motion to withdraw | Court held counsel did not comply with Turner/Finley; remanded and ordered counsel to either file a compliant no-merit petition to withdraw or an advocate’s brief |
| Whether Hartleb has colorable sentencing-related claims (prior record score and offense gravity score errors) | Hartleb contended a Texas arson conviction was misgraded affecting his prior record score and that the OGS for a firearms count was calculated incorrectly | PCRA counsel largely labeled the prior-record-score claim meritless and did not analyze the OGS claim fully | Court found Hartleb may have at least one colorable claim and that counsel failed to adequately evaluate or address these issues |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to PSI and sentencing guideline calculations at sentencing | Hartleb asserted trial counsel made no objections to the presentence report or guideline calculations | Trial/PCRA counsel did not address an ineffective assistance claim based on failures to object | Court noted PCRA counsel failed to acknowledge or analyze a possible ineffective assistance claim and directed further action |
| Whether the appeal record and counsel’s review were adequate under post-conviction representation standards | Hartleb/record suggested gaps and simultaneous filings showing incomplete review | PCRA counsel’s filings were ambiguous and procedurally deficient | Court concluded counsel hadn’t sufficiently examined the case; ordered compliance with Turner/Finley or filing of advocate’s brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw for lack of merit)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedural framework for no-merit/AFFIDAVIT practice on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2015) (post-conviction counsel’s duties and continuous representation requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2006) (requirements for no-merit letter and notice to petitioner when counsel seeks to withdraw on PCRA appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Glover, 738 A.2d 460 (Pa. Super. 1999) (Turner requires counsel to list each issue and explain why issues are meritless)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appointed counsel to withdraw when no non-frivolous issues exist)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders-type procedures in Pennsylvania)