Com. v. Hill, D., 2113 EDA 2016

Dwayne Hill was convicted in 2008 of PWID and conspiracy and placed on 4 years probation; while on probation he was later convicted of rape (victim age 16) in 2013.
At a VOP hearing in October 2013 the trial court revoked probation and imposed a 5–10 year sentence on the PWID and conspiracy counts to run consecutively to an 8–16 year rape sentence.
Hill filed a PCRA petition seeking restoration of his direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc, claiming he mailed counsel a letter the day after sentencing requesting post-sentence motions and an appeal; he also raised other ineffective-assistance and sentencing claims.
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, found Hill not credible on the mailing claim, denied relief, and Hill appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed credibility findings as binding, rejected Hill’s credit-for-time-served claim because time was already credited to the rape sentence (no double credit), and held other ineffective-assistance claims waived for not being raised in the PCRA petition.

Issue	Hill's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument	Held
1. Reinstatement of direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc for counsel’s failure to file a requested appeal	Hill said he mailed counsel a letter the day after sentencing asking for post-sentence motions and a direct appeal	No record of letter receipt; Defender’s office would have documented such a request; Hill omitted the letter in earlier filings	Denied — PCRA court’s adverse credibility finding supported; Hill failed to prove request was made and ignored
2. Legality of sentence — credit for time served from Aug 24, 2008	Hill argued he should receive credit for time served between arrest and VOP sentencing	Time in custody was already credited to the rape sentence; cannot receive double credit	Denied — no entitlement to double credit under governing statutes/case law
3. Right to new VOP/sentencing hearing for denial of adversarial process	Hill claimed constitutional denial of an adversarial process at VOP/sentencing	Issues not established in record or not raised properly	Denied/waived — PCRA court’s findings supported; claims not preserved in PCRA petition
4. Various ineffective-assistance claims (failure to consult, object, present mitigation, request PSR, etc.)	Hill asserted counsel abandoned him and was ineffective across multiple specific acts/omissions	These issues were not raised in the PCRA petition and therefore are waived	Denied/waived — claims are forfeited for failure to raise in PCRA petition

Lantzy v. Commonwealth, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (failure to file a requested direct appeal entitles defendant to reinstatement of appeal rights)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (counsel’s duty to consult about appeals when client shows a desire to appeal or there are nonfrivolous issues)
Kimball v. Commonwealth, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (standards for proving ineffectiveness under PCRA)
Halley v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Ellsworth v. Commonwealth, 97 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant cannot receive credit against more than one sentence for same time served)