Com. v. Jiles, S.
Com. v. Jiles, S. No. 1063 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Jiles was convicted on multiple robbery-related charges and received an aggregate 9–21 year sentence; direct appeal affirmed in 2012.
- He timely filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2013 alleging ineffective assistance for failure to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- PCRA court appointed counsel, who initially obtained reinstatement of the right to file a petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc but denied other relief.
- On remand, PCRA counsel failed to amend the petition; PCRA court conducted a hearing and denied relief in 2015.
- Appellant later claimed appellate rights were not reinstated due to counsel’s deficiencies; appeal proceeded with Turner/Finley briefing.
- The Superior Court remanded to cure Turner/Finley deficiencies and ordered counsel to file or be replaced; record remanded with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turner/Finley compliance permitted withdrawal | Jiles argues counsel failed Turner/Finley requirements | Graff complied superficially; no proper no-merit brief | Turner/Finley requirements not satisfied; remand for proper brief or advocate’s brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (establishes Turner/Finley framework for post-conviction counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc; outlines no-merit letter requirements and procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa.Super. 2014) (requires independent record review and proper service of no-merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.3d 717 (Pa.Super. 2007) (controls when Turner/Finley prerequisites are not met)