Com. v. MacColl, D.
278 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Dennis J. MacColl pled guilty on July 10, 2013 to multiple simple assault and terroristic threats counts and received negotiated sentences (6–23 months + probation); he did not directly appeal that plea.
- After probation/parole violations, his supervision was revoked and on November 10, 2015 he was resentenced to an aggregate 2½–5 years; he appealed that resentencing and the Superior Court affirmed on September 9, 2016.
- MacColl filed a pro se PCRA petition on November 7, 2016 alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to move to dismiss, failure to object at PV sentencing, inadequate preparation, ethical issues with counsel, judicial bias).
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, received MacColl’s pro se response, conducted an independent review, dismissed the PCRA petition on January 11, 2017, and permitted counsel to withdraw.
- The PCRA court held most claims untimely under the one‑year statutory bar, some previously litigated on direct appeal, and the rest meritless; MacColl appealed pro se and the Superior Court affirmed, relying on the PCRA court’s detailed Rule 1925 opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MacColl) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition (one‑year rule) | MacColl argued counsel was ineffective for pre‑plea conduct and other claims such that his petition should proceed | Commonwealth/PCRA court: judgment was final Aug 9, 2013; petition filed Nov 7, 2016, so untimely and no §9545(b) exception pleaded | Court: claim untimely; no statutory exception shown; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on timeliness grounds |
| IAC re: guilty plea (failure to investigate / coercion / counsel’s ethics) | MacColl claimed counsel failed to provide meaningful representation and had ethical problems that tainted the plea | PCRA court: plea colloquy, signed forms, factual admissions, and strategic benefit (below‑guidelines plea) show competent representation and no prejudice | Court: no arguable merit; plea was knowing/voluntary; IAC claim fails |
| IAC re: probation violation sentencing / judicial bias | MacColl argued counsel failed to object to excessive PV sentence and failed to seek recusal | Commonwealth: these claims were litigated on direct appeal and rejected; sentencing considered factors and warnings | Court: previously litigated / meritless; not entitled to relief |
| Withdrawal of PCRA counsel / requirement to interview client | MacColl argued counsel abandoned him by not discussing the PCRA petition before filing no‑merit letter | PCRA court: Turner/Finley withdrawal rules (less onerous than Anders) do not per se require an interview; counsel provided a no‑merit letter and court performed independent review | Court: withdrawal and dismissal were proper; any technical Finley deficiency would be harmless when claims lack merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawing on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit letter framework for PCRA counsel)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel withdrawal on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders/McClendon requirements for appellate counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Gaerttner, 649 A.2d 139 (Pa. Super. 1994) (technical Finley noncompliance may be harmless if claims lack merit)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (standards for after‑discovered evidence / non‑conclusory pleading)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA timeliness)