Com. v. Lee, J., Com. v. Lee, J. No. 2610 EDA 2016

John Lee pleaded open guilty on March 20, 2012 to multiple counts across three dockets arising from a human‑trafficking/prostitution ring and related drug possession; he was sentenced August 1, 2012 to an aggregate 15–30 year term.
Lee did not file a direct appeal; he filed a first PCRA petition on July 15, 2013 and an amended PCRA petition in February 2015 asserting plea‑counsel ineffective assistance; the PCRA court denied relief without a hearing on July 13, 2016.
At plea colloquy Lee signed written guilty plea colloquies that listed the offenses and indicated maximum exposures; the court orally advised there were no sentencing agreements except one Commonwealth concession.
Lee alleged (1) counsel promised a 3–6 year deal and failed to advise maximum exposure, (2) counsel failed to explain open plea/consecutive sentencing exposure, and (3) counsel refused to investigate or interview potential defense witnesses.
The PCRA court and Superior Court concluded the record contradicted Lee’s assertions about a promised 3–6 year deal, the aggregate sentence imposed fell within the range for a single case, and Lee failed to plead facts showing missing witnesses would have testified favorably.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea counsel promised a 3–6 year plea and failed to advise maximum exposure	Lee: counsel promised a 3–6 year deal and did not advise maximum sentences	Commonwealth/PCRA court: written and oral colloquies and signed forms show no promise and that Lee was informed of exposure	Court: No merit — record contradicts promise; plea was knowing and voluntary
Whether counsel failed to explain open plea and possibility of consecutive sentences	Lee: counsel did not explain open plea or that court could impose consecutive sentences across dockets	Commonwealth: colloquies informed Lee of individual case maximums; court imposed aggregate within single‑case range	Court: No manifest injustice — aggregate sentence fell within range for one case; no relief
Whether counsel refused to investigate or call defense witnesses	Lee: counsel refused to interview co‑defendants/witnesses who could show innocence	Commonwealth: Lee failed to identify witnesses’ willingness or what favorable testimony they would give	Court: Claim inadequately developed; Lee did not show prejudice or that witnesses would testify favorably
Whether Lee was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these claims	Lee: factual disputes require a hearing	Commonwealth: claims are patently meritless or unsupported by record	Court: No hearing required; denial of PCRA without hearing affirmed

Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (ineffective assistance standard applies to plea context)
Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statements under oath at plea colloquy bind defendant)
Commonwealth v. Cappelli, 489 A.2d 813 (Pa. Super. 1985) (contradicted plea‑colloquy statements undermine withdrawal claims)
Commonwealth v. Carter, 656 A.2d 463 (Pa. 1995) (consecutive sentencing disclosure and prejudice analysis)
Commonwealth v. Persinger, 615 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1992) (consecutive sentencing notice issue)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (standards for claims that counsel failed to call witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Diaz, 913 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prejudice standard for plea‑process ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Moser, 921 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2007) (applying witness‑noncalling test to plea counsel claims)