Com. v. Hickox, J.
Com. v. Hickox, J. No. 1882 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Justin M. Hickox was charged with nine counts of indecent assault and one count of corruption of minors; he eventually entered guilty pleas and received probation (later resentenced to prison after a violation).
- After an earlier appeal vacated his sentence and remand, Hickox pleaded guilty on June 2, 2014 to all counts and received an aggregate 15 years probation (time served and costs that day).
- Hickox filed multiple PCRA petitions; counsel was appointed then allowed to withdraw at Hickox’s request, and Hickox proceeded pro se after a Grazier hearing.
- The PCRA court dismissed Hickox’s petitions; the Superior Court remanded for a Grazier hearing and permitted Hickox to amend; his second amended PCRA petition was later dismissed on November 1, 2016.
- Hickox raised two ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on appeal: (1) counsel’s misconduct during the guilty-plea process coerced an involuntary plea; (2) counsel failed to prepare for trial (subpoenas, witnesses, documents).
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal: it held Hickox’s plea colloquy (oral and written) established the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and the trial-preparation claim was waived for lack of factual specificity in the PCRA petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hickox) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was counsel ineffective during the guilty-plea process? | Counsel solicited a plea without Hickox’s consent on day of jury selection, pressured him to plead, and was unprepared for trial; thus plea was involuntary. | Plea colloquy (oral and written) shows Hickox knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently pleaded and was satisfied with counsel; statements at colloquy are binding. | Denied — plea upheld as voluntary; IAC claim fails because underlying claim lacks merit. |
| 2. Was counsel ineffective for failing to prepare for trial (subpoenas, witnesses, documents)? | Counsel failed to subpoena/examine exculpatory witnesses and documents; plea was taken under coercive time pressure. | Hickox’s PCRA petition lacked required factual specificity (did not identify witnesses/documents); claim therefore waived. | Denied — claim waived for failure to plead facts in PCRA; plea-voluntariness argument also fails on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 48 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (guilty-plea challenges limited by plea colloquy statements)
- Moser v. Commonwealth, 921 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2007) (plea must be knowing, voluntary, intelligent; displeasure with outcome insufficient)
- Pollard v. Commonwealth, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for plea colloquy under Rule 590)
- Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (on-the-record determination required for waiver of counsel post-conviction)
- Rega v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (burden rests on appellant to prove ineffectiveness)