Com. v. Jones, A.
3300 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Andre Michael Jones pled open guilty to one count of rape of a child and one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse; Commonwealth withdrew 80 other charges and agreed not to seek a mandatory minimum.
- At plea colloquy Jones acknowledged no promises were made beyond the plea terms and that the court would determine sentence; he signed a written colloquy confirming the same.
- At sentencing the PSI contained a typographical error listing a 20‑year maximum instead of 40; the Commonwealth corrected the typo on the record and Jones did not object at sentencing.
- The court imposed a standard‑range sentence (20–40 years on the rape count, consecutive 10 years probation on the IDSI), denied reconsideration, and the Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Jones filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming the Commonwealth had negotiated a 10–20 year plea offer then “modified” it, that his plea was induced by that promise, and that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw the plea or object to the change.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Jones’s claims were waived, contradicted by the record, or meritless as to counsel ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct by offering a 10–20 yr plea then reneging | Jones: Commonwealth made an offer it did not intend to keep to induce his plea | Commonwealth/CT: No negotiated sentence was promised; claim was not raised on direct appeal and is not cognizable on PCRA | Waived / not cognizable; claim rejected |
| Whether Jones’s plea was involuntary/unknowing because he relied on a 10–20 yr promise | Jones: He understood plea would be 10–20 years and would not have pled otherwise | CT: Plea colloquy and written waiver show no promise of a sentence; record contradicts claim | Rejected—plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent |
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw the plea when the offer was allegedly modified | Jones: Counsel should have withdrawn or objected to the altered offer | CT: Counsel is presumed effective; no arguable merit shown because record shows no promised sentence; counsel did file a post‑sentence motion on a related issue | Rejected—no ineffective assistance shown |
| Whether trial court erred by not allowing withdrawal of plea after alleged error in offer | Jones: Court should have allowed withdrawal when the Commonwealth admitted an error | CT: Jones did not file a motion to withdraw; claim waived and unsupported by record | Waived and denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (appellate briefing requirements and waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (prosecutorial misconduct claims and preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (ineffectiveness claims related to guilty pleas)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)