Com. v. Hill, J.
Com. v. Hill, J. No. 184 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- James Robert Hill was convicted by jury of attempted homicide and related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 30 years 9 months to 61.5 years.
- Trial counsel (appointed) did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; counsel did not formally move to withdraw.
- Hill filed pro se motions asserting counsel abandoned him and requesting nunc pro tunc relief; the PCRA court appointed PCRA counsel.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw, concluding trial counsel had informed Hill of appeal deadlines and that sentencing challenges lacked merit.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Hill appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether trial counsel failed to file a requested appeal or otherwise consult, and whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a hearing; if Hill prevails, appellate and post‑sentence rights must be reinstated nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file post‑sentence motions/appeal | Hill: he instructed counsel to file motions/appeal and did not waive rights | Commonwealth/PCRA court: record shows Hill was informed of deadlines and did not request counsel to file | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing — record silent; hearing required to resolve whether counsel abandoned Hill |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue the abandonment/appeal claim | Hill: PCRA counsel should have developed the claim and sought a hearing | PCRA counsel: no‑merit because underlying sentencing challenge lacked merit and trial counsel had advised Hill | Court found PCRA counsel lacked reasonable basis for not pursuing hearing; remanded and ordered counsel be appointed for hearing |
| Whether Appellant is entitled to reinstatement of appellate rights nunc pro tunc | Hill: constructive denial of appeal requires reinstatement | Commonwealth: underlying sentencing claim lacks merit, so no relief | If hearing proves trial counsel failed to file a requested appeal (or failed to consult when appeal would be rational), court must reinstate appeal rights nunc pro tunc and permit filing of post‑sentence motion |
| Whether merits of discretionary sentencing claim should be reviewed now | Hill: seeks review of sentencing | Commonwealth/PCRA: merits lack merit so no relief | Court declined to decide merits on current record; merits are secondary to whether appeal rights were denied and will be considered after remand if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Rosado, 150 A.3d 425 (actual or constructive denial of counsel can establish prejudice per se)
- Commonwealth v. Bronaugh, 670 A.2d 147 (hearing required where petitioner alleges he directed counsel to file appeal and record is silent)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 755 A.2d 1 (counsel’s failure to preserve sole issue for appeal can deny right to appeal; remedy is reinstatement nunc pro tunc)
- Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014 (layered ineffectiveness claims and duties of successive counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 (duty to consult about appellate rights and standard for prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (failure to file or perfect requested appeal warrants relief)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (procedure for seeking reinstatement of appeal rights nunc pro tunc)