Com. v. King, D.
Com. v. King, D. No. 105 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- King pleaded guilty on December 17, 2013 to multiple charges including flight to avoid apprehension, fleeing/ eluding, forging documents, recklessly endangering, resisting arrest, and motor-vehicle offenses. No plea agreement as to sentence was entered.
- At plea and sentencing, King expressed he accepted the plea because he understood he would receive a county sentence of 11½ to 23 months; the court ordered a presentence report and later imposed state-prison-range concurrent sentences (21–42 months and 12–24 months) and 10 years probation.
- King filed a pro se PCRA petition (later amended) claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel: counsel promised a county sentence (11½–23 months) and induced the guilty plea, and failed to file post-sentence motions or an appeal.
- The Commonwealth agreed an evidentiary hearing was needed; at the PCRA hearing King relied on a October 23, 2013 letter from counsel stating counsel’s intent to request a county sentence and to seek that King be paroled forthwith.
- Counsel (Walker) testified he never guaranteed a county sentence, that the letter only stated his intent to request such a sentence, and that he advised King at sentencing about risks and options; the PCRA court credited counsel and denied relief.
- King appealed; PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw. The Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | Walker/Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel induced plea by promising a county sentence | Walker promised 11½–23 months county time; King relied on that and would not have pleaded otherwise | Letter and counsel’s testimony show only an intent/request to seek county sentence; no guarantee; King was advised and given choice at sentencing | Court held no guarantee was made; plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; ineffectiveness claim lacks arguable merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal/no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal/no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no‑merit letter and court’s independent review requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (notice to petitioner of rights when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (presumption that counsel is effective)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (three‑part ineffectiveness standard)
- Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review of PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez–Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2011) (credibility findings by PCRA court are binding on appeal)