Com. v. King, M.
883 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Michael P. King was convicted by a jury on May 4, 2010 of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, possession with intent to deliver (PWID), and eluding police, arising from a July 24, 2009 shooting and subsequent vehicle chase in Philadelphia.
- At sentencing on July 13, 2010 the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 23.5 to 47 years’ imprisonment.
- King’s direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court on March 6, 2012; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on August 8, 2012.
- King filed a timely first PCRA petition (Sept. 4, 2012); counsel was appointed, an amended petition filed, then King elected to proceed pro se and filed supplements.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice (Feb. 13, 2015), King did not respond, and the court dismissed the petition as meritless on March 13, 2015.
- King appealed pro se, raising (1) that the PCRA court improperly adopted the Commonwealth’s motion and acted as advocate, (2) that the court failed to cite authority/explain its reasoning, and (3) that his sentence was illegal.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court improperly adopted Commonwealth’s motion and acted as advocate | Court relied on prosecutor’s motion/case law and thus denied fair process | Court merely reviewed the record and the Commonwealth’s filing; no improper advocacy | Rejected — King offered only conclusory assertions and failed to show the court relied improperly on Commonwealth cases |
| Whether PCRA court failed to state reasons/cite authority when dismissing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 | Court did not provide adequate explanation or cite controlling authority; violated Rule 2119 requirements | Rule 907 notice was proper and Rule 2119 governs briefs, not judicial opinions | Rejected — Rule 907 notice and dismissal procedure complied; no violation shown |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to jury instruction (referring to victim) | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the instruction | Counsel presumed effective; King failed to satisfy the three-prong ineffectiveness test | Rejected — King failed to plead/prove arguable merit, lack of reasonable basis, or prejudice |
| Whether sentence was illegal / mandatory-minimum imposed | King claims sentence included unconstitutional mandatory minimums | Record shows discretionary consecutive terms, no mandatory-minimum sentence | Rejected — sentencing record shows no mandatory minimum; claim is frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (sets out three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards of review for PCRA denials and deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (defendant may represent self after a proper colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se appellants get liberal construction but must follow rules; court may excuse defects in interest of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (legality of sentence claims are non-waivable)