Com. v. Hoskins, H., 1643 MDA 2016

Background

In July 2005 Hoskins pointed a .38 revolver at two men during an altercation, pulled the trigger several times (no shot fired), and was later convicted after a 2007 jury trial. He received an aggregate 27–60 year sentence.
Hoskins absconded after trial and was apprehended years later; this delayed sentencing and appellate proceedings.
After direct appeals were exhausted, Hoskins filed a pro se PCRA petition (Nov. 2012) claiming after-discovered evidence: affidavits in which witnesses purportedly recanted trial testimony.
Appointed PCRA counsel (Lynch) filed an amended petition and Turner/Finley no‑merit letters concluding the recantations and a new firearms issue lacked merit; counsel then sought to withdraw.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition; Hoskins appealed. While the appeal was pending, new counsel sought remand to raise for the first time an ineffective-assistance claim against PCRA counsel (that PCRA counsel should have argued trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the discretionary aspects of sentence).
The Superior Court denied remand and affirmed dismissal, holding claims of PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness raised for the first time on appeal must be pursued in a serial PCRA petition (or via exceptions under §9545), and that Lynch’s representation did not amount to the nonfeasance that would excuse waiver.

Issues

Issue	Hoskins' Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether remand is required to litigate an unraised claim that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to assert trial counsel’s ineffectiveness on discretionary-sentencing grounds	Hoskins argued PCRA counsel (Lynch) was ineffective and remand should be granted to develop that claim	Commonwealth argued the claim was waived because it was not raised in the PCRA court and must be brought in a serial PCRA petition	Denied — claims of PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness raised for the first time on appeal cannot be litigated on remand; must be raised in a subsequent PCRA petition (subject to timeliness exceptions)
Whether counsel’s performance amounted to constructive denial of counsel justifying consideration of the new claim on appeal	Hoskins argued Lynch’s representation constructively denied him meaningful participation in the PCRA process	Commonwealth argued Lynch filed an amended petition and Turner/Finley letters, so representation was adequate	Denied — counsel actively represented Hoskins (filed pleadings and no‑merit letters); record does not show the nonfeasance required to excuse waiver
Whether the PCRA court needed to hold a hearing on the recantation/after-discovered evidence claims	Hoskins asserted witnesses recanted and new evidence warranted relief	Commonwealth and PCRA court found recantation unreliable and not outcome-determinative	No hearing required — PCRA court properly concluded claims lacked merit based on record and counsel’s investigation
Whether appellate court should craft ad hoc remand procedures to allow raising PCRA-counsel claims for the first time on appeal	Hoskins proposed remand/supplemental petition as a solution	Commonwealth cautioned against ad hoc remands and noted procedural complications; Superior Court constrained by precedent and rulemaking limits	Rejected — court declined to create ad hoc procedure and noted such changes must come from the Supreme Court or rulemaking body

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (claims of PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness first raised on appeal must be pursued in a serial PCRA petition)
Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (reaffirming Ford and denying remand where PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness was raised first on appeal; limited exception for complete nonappointment or total nonfeasance)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA petitioner bears burden to advance and preserve claims; failure to raise PCRA-counsel claims before the PCRA court waives them)
Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (timeliness exceptions under §9545 may permit a subsequent untimely PCRA petition)
Commonwealth v. Willis, 29 A.3d 393 (Pa. Super. 2011) (examples where appointed counsel’s nonfeasance effectively denied representation)
Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2009) (chronic failures in PCRA representation that led to absence of a counseled petition)