Com. v. Jiles, S., Com. v. Jiles, S. No. 1063 MDA 2016

Background

Stephen E. Jiles was convicted of multiple robberies and related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 9 to 21 years; this Court previously affirmed his judgment of sentence.
Jiles filed multiple pro se and counseled PCRA petitions alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and judicial/prosecutorial misconduct; the PCRA court granted limited relief only to reinstate the right to file a discretionary appeal nunc pro tunc.
Appointed PCRA counsel on remand (after this Court found prior counsel ineffective) filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter addressing four main issues; the Commonwealth Court directed counsel to amend the letter to address issues raised in Jiles’s original pro se petition.
The four contested issues: (1) counsel’s failure to seek dismissal of charges at docket 2745‑2010 for alleged procedural defects/prosecutorial misconduct; (2) counsel’s alleged bad plea advice causing Jiles to reject a 7–14 year offer; (3) alleged “structural error” because a judge had an intimate relationship with an ADA who litigated motions; (4) counsel’s failure to seek relief after learning of that relationship.
The PCRA court denied relief after a hearing; this appeal followed. The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s Turner/Finley submission, found it compliant, independently reviewed the record, and affirmed the PCRA denial while granting PCRA counsel leave to withdraw.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jiles)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Counsel)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss charges at 2745‑2010 for procedural defects/prosecutorial misconduct	Refiling and prosecution at 2745‑2010 violated due process; counsel should have moved to dismiss	Refiling was authorized, a preliminary hearing was held April 28, 2010, and no prosecutorial misconduct appears in the record	Denied — no arguable merit and no prejudice; jury acquitted the second‑degree count and overall outcome not shown to be different
Whether counsel gave flawed plea advice causing rejection of a 7–14 year global offer	Hoffman exaggerated acquittal chances and failed to advise max/min exposure; Jiles would have accepted plea if properly advised	Counsel testified he explained the offer, warned of risk of greater consecutive sentences, and left decision to Jiles, who wanted to preserve suppression issues for appeal	Denied — record shows Jiles chose trial to pursue suppression claims; no showing counsel’s advice changed outcome
Whether structural error occurred because a judge had an intimate relationship with an ADA who litigated motions	Judicial impartiality was compromised by judge–ADA relationship causing structural error	No evidence presented that any such relationship existed or affected Jiles’s trial; issue previously litigated	Denied — claim previously litigated and lacks evidence of relationship or prejudice
Whether counsel (trial/direct‑appeal) was ineffective for failing to file appellate relief after learning of judge–ADA relationship	Counsel should have filed application for relief upon discovery of relationship	Same as above: lack of proof the relationship existed or affected proceedings; previously litigated/waived	Denied — claim previously litigated or waived and lacks arguable merit

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for PCRA denial and ineffective assistance analysis)
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (Turner/Finley no‑merit letter withdrawal requirements)
Commonwealth v. Pettersen, 49 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (refiling charges permitted absent harassment or prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa.) (procedures for withdrawing PCRA counsel)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (en banc) (procedures for withdrawing PCRA counsel)
Commonwealth v. Oliver, 128 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (waiver/previous litigation principles under the PCRA)