Com. v. McArthur, E.
3852 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Edward McArthur was convicted after a bench trial (Aug. 3, 2010) of robbery, burglary, theft, criminal trespass, firearm violations, and simple assault for an armed home invasion with three victims present.
- Sentenced Jan. 24, 2011 to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration plus 10 years’ probation; this Court affirmed on direct appeal and the PA Supreme Court denied review.
- McArthur filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (July 8, 2013); counsel filed an amended petition (Aug. 3, 2014).
- The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on Dec. 12, 2016; McArthur appealed.
- Claim: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult about and file a post‑sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of sentence; McArthur sought leave to file nunc pro tunc or an evidentiary hearing.
- PCRA court found no genuine issue of material fact and denied relief; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McArthur) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to consult about or file a post‑sentence motion raising discretionary‑aspects of sentence | Counsel failed to consult and therefore deprived McArthur of an opportunity to challenge sentence | Counsel is presumed effective; no reasonable basis to file because discretionary‑sentence claim lacked merit | Denied — no ineffective assistance: underlying claim lacked arguable merit and McArthur suffered no prejudice |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | McArthur requested a hearing to develop facts on counsel’s consultation and deficient performance | PCRA court may dismiss without a hearing if record shows no genuine issue of material fact | Denied — no hearing required because record resolved the claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for proving ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2015) (presumption that sentencing court aware of PSI and sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. Super. 2014) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claim)
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to evidentiary hearing on PCRA petition)