Com. v. Kovacs, S.
1073 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Steven Kovacs was arrested after police found methamphetamine production paraphernalia and 400 grams of methamphetamine fluid at his residence, plus pseudoephedrine purchases tied to production. He also committed a separate assault incident where he struck a victim with a syringe and pursued her by vehicle.
- Kovacs pled nolo contendere/guilty to manufacture of methamphetamine, related inchoate offenses, simple assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, harassment, reckless driving, and careless driving.
- He received 3–10 years’ incarceration for methamphetamine manufacture and 14 years’ probation for other offenses (probation consecutive to incarceration).
- At the plea hearing Kovacs acknowledged plea was voluntary and that he accepted it because of a significant downward sentencing departure; he also expressed some dissatisfaction with trial counsel but did not move to withdraw the plea or file a direct appeal.
- Kovacs timely filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed, filed amended petitions, a hearing was held, and the PCRA court dismissed relief. PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and moved to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed and affirmed the dismissal and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kovacs) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel ineffective for advising plea instead of going to trial and failing to pursue suppression/other motions | Kovacs contended counsel was unprepared, failed to preserve evidence and should have proceeded to trial or moved to suppress | Counsel reasonably recommended plea given high exposure, weak case, investigation and pretrial motions were pursued; plea produced significant sentencing benefit | Denied — counsel’s advice and actions had a reasonable basis; no ineffective assistance shown |
| 2. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to preserve/appellate rights and not filing an appeal | Kovacs argued counsel did not preserve or consult regarding appellate rights and thus appellate rights were lost | Counsel informed Kovacs of appellate rights and Kovacs declined to have counsel file an appeal; no request was made to file one | Denied — petitioner did not ask for an appeal and counsel is not ineffective for not filing one |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (standard for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (counsel’s conduct effective if it has a reasonable basis)
- Commonwealth v. Pond, 846 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to satisfy any prong of ineffectiveness test is fatal)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (presumption of counsel effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (timely appeal rule and prejudice in some circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Maynard, 900 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 2006) (must prove defendant asked counsel to file an appeal to obtain relief)
- Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2011) (duty to consult about appellate rights; Roe v. Flores-Ortega framework)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Turner/Finley technical and substantive withdrawal requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Turner/Finley standards)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (failure to consult about appeal can constitute ineffective assistance)