Com. v. Hawes. D.
216 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- In January 2013 Dontel Hawes entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder and received 12½ to 30 years; remaining charges were nolle prossed.
- Hawes did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; he filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on February 7, 2014.
- On February 13, 2014 Hawes mailed an unapproved amended PCRA petition asserting trial-counsel ineffectiveness; he did not seek the court’s permission to amend.
- PCRA counsel was appointed, filed a Turner/Finley letter and motion to withdraw, and did not seek to amend the original PCRA petition to add ineffectiveness claims.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Hawes did not respond, the court dismissed the petition on January 21, 2015, and Hawes appealed after appellate rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Hawes' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Brady and discovery issues (I(A)) | Hawes argued PCRA counsel failed to pursue Brady/discovery claims that could have changed the outcome | Waiver: Hawes did not raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness in response to Rule 907; claims not preserved | Waived — PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness not preserved because Hawes failed to respond to Rule 907 notice |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and request discovery (I(B)) | Hawes claimed trial counsel’s investigation/discovery failures rendered plea unknowing and prejudicial | Waiver: claim was not included in the original PCRA petition and the amended petition was unauthorized | Waived — ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim raised in unauthorized amendment and not preserved |
| Whether Hawes’ guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel failures (II) | Hawes argued plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered because counsel was ineffective | Same preservation/waiver argument; claim first raised as PCRA-counsel-ineffectiveness on appeal | Waived — claim not properly presented in PCRA court and thus not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (failure to raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness in response to Rule 907 may waive that claim)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (claims raised in unauthorized supplemental PCRA petitions are subject to waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517 (Pa. 2001) (Rule 907 notice gives petitioner opportunity to amend and permit merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural framework for counsel withdrawal via Turner/Finley letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (same; en banc guidance on counsel’s motion to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explaining purpose of Rule 907 notice and preservation rules)