Com. v. Knight, L.
1757 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Appellant Lewis Benjamin Knight pleaded guilty/nolo contendere to 14 burglary counts across four dockets in 2014 and received an aggregate sentence of 7–16 years on October 17, 2014.
- Trial counsel Heather Reiner represented Knight at plea and sentencing; no post-sentence motion or direct appeal was filed.
- Knight filed a counseled PCRA petition (June 26, 2015) claiming Reiner was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal after he asked her to do so.
- At the PCRA evidentiary hearing, Reiner testified she did not recall a direct request to file an appeal or post-sentence motion and would have filed one if asked; Knight and his mother testified they asked Reiner to pursue an appeal and contend she discouraged it.
- The PCRA court found Reiner credible, concluded Knight failed to prove he requested an appeal within 30 days, and denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Knight) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was per se ineffective for failing to file a requested direct appeal | Knight says he asked Reiner to file paperwork to challenge the sentence and she ignored the request | Reiner says no one asked her to file an appeal or post-sentence motion; she would have filed if asked | Court held Knight failed to prove a request was made; claim fails |
| Whether counsel had a duty to consult about an appeal under Roe v. Flores-Ortega | Knight argues he reasonably demonstrated interest in appealing and thus counsel had a duty to consult/follow up | Commonwealth argued Reiner consulted sufficiently and no deficient performance occurred | Court treated Flores-Ortega argument as potentially waived and meritless on facts; no reasonable probability Knight would have appealed |
| Whether Knight suffered prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to preserve appellate rights | Knight contends prejudice is shown because he had discretionary sentencing issues to appeal | Commonwealth argues absence of any evidence Knight would have pursued an appeal even if counseled | Court found no prejudice under either per se or Flores-Ortega standards because Knight did not show he requested or would have timely appealed |
| Whether the PCRA court’s credibility findings are reviewable | Knight implicitly challenges factual findings about witness credibility | Commonwealth defends PCRA court credibility determinations as supported by the record | Court held PCRA court credibility findings are binding when supported by record and they were supported here; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Lantzy v. Commonwealth, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (failure to file a requested direct appeal constitutes prejudice per se)
- Bath v. Commonwealth, 907 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2006) (defendant must prove he requested appeal and counsel disregarded it)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel must consult when reason to think defendant wants to appeal; prejudice requires reasonable probability defendant would have timely appealed)
- Widgins v. Commonwealth, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards for ineffective assistance under PCRA review)
- Donaghy v. Commonwealth, 33 A.3d 12 (Pa. Super. 2011) (counsel’s failure to follow up deprived defendant of appellate assistance where defendant communicated desire to appeal)
- Steele v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (three-prong ineffective assistance test under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawal on appeal when issues are frivolous)