Com. v. Jablonski, S.
Com. v. Jablonski, S. No. 647 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Stephen Jablonski pled guilty on April 2, 2015 to a third‑degree felony for placing/ threatening placement of a bomb; sentenced to 24–48 months, fines, costs, and restitution, effective October 22, 2014.
- Jablonski filed a pro se PCRA petition on June 26, 2015 asserting constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an unlawfully induced plea; counsel was appointed and an amended/counseled PCRA petition followed.
- A PCRA hearing was held December 9, 2015; the PCRA court dismissed the petition on March 23, 2016 and Jablonski timely appealed.
- Central claim resolved on appeal: plea counsel refused to file a requested direct appeal because he believed appeals would be meritless; the PCRA court accepted counsel’s explanation and denied relief.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether counsel’s failure to file a requested direct appeal amounted to ineffective assistance and whether direct‑appeal rights must be reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jablonski) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / plea counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a requested direct appeal | Jablonski asked counsel to file a direct appeal and counsel refused | Counsel testified he declined because the issues lacked merit and repeatedly told Jablonski not to appeal | Court held counsel ineffective per se for failing to file a requested appeal; direct‑appeal rights must be reinstated |
| Whether counsel had to follow Anders procedure when appeal seemed frivolous | Jablonski argues denial of appellate process when counsel declined to pursue appeal | Counsel claimed no duty to file where no meritorious issue existed | Court held Anders (and PA procedure) applies; counsel must follow Anders rather than simply refuse an appeal |
| Whether failure to file appeal can be excused if issues are meritless | Jablonski contends meritlessness does not excuse failure to file requested appeal | Counsel/PCRA court reasoned meritlessness justified not filing | Court rejected that view; meritoriousness is not a defense to failure to file a requested appeal |
| Remedy for counsel’s failure to file requested appeal | Jablonski seeks reinstatement of direct‑appeal rights | Commonwealth did not dispute reinstatement remedy | Court vacated PCRA denial and remanded with instructions to reinstate direct‑appeal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Perry v. 346 A.2d 554 (Pa. 1975) (counsel must protect appellate rights; cannot let right be waived absent effective client waiver)
- Wilkerson v. 416 A.2d 477 (Pa. 1980) (Anders procedure required when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Reaves v. 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (failure to file requested direct appeal constitutes per se ineffectiveness)
- Lantzy v. 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (automatic reinstatement of direct‑appeal rights when counsel fails to file requested appeal)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure counsel must follow when concluding appeal is frivolous)