Com. v. Landis, M.
1839 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Michael D. Landis pled guilty to DUI (lowest rate), habitual offender, and driving with suspended privileges; two other counts were nolle prossed.
- At plea hearing Landis affirmed his pleas were voluntary and not the product of threats or promises; counsel mentioned state intermediate punishment (SIP) as a possibility.
- At sentencing the court explained Landis was ineligible for SIP (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive) because he was on state parole and a detainer had been lodged; Landis did not claim at that time that SIP had been promised.
- Landis received an aggregate sentence of 2–4 years, consecutive to parole-violation time; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Landis filed a timely first PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for failing to secure SIP; the PCRA court held a hearing and denied relief.
- Landis filed a second PCRA petition raising the same claim; the PCRA court summarily dismissed it as previously litigated and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to enforce a promise that Landis would be placed in the State Intermediate Punishment program | Landis argued counsel failed to secure/enforce a promise of SIP placement as part of the plea | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the claim was previously litigated and there was no promise of SIP—Landis was ineligible due to a parole detainer | Superior Court held the claim was previously litigated, denied relief, and affirmed summary dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stultz v. Commonwealth, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for reviewing PCRA denials)
- Henkel v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate review scope for PCRA appeals)
- Rykard v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (limits on appellate review of PCRA findings)
- Rigg v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Watts v. Commonwealth, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (previously litigated claims bar under PCRA)
- Boyd v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural waiver for failure to object to Rule 907 notice)