Com. v. McClenny, P.
2199 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Peron McClenny was convicted after a non-jury (bench) trial of robbery and kidnapping arising from the same incident and received consecutive 5–10 year sentences; he filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (Sept. 21, 2012), counsel was appointed, and an amended petition was filed (July 10, 2014).
- PCRA hearings were held and the PCRA court denied relief on July 7, 2016; McClenny appealed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- McClenny raised four principal claims in his PCRA: Alleyne/mandatory-minimum sentencing error; ineffective assistance for counsel’s stipulation to DNA results (and related Confrontation/Brady/forensic issues); invalid jury-trial waiver (insufficient colloquy and no written waiver); and a Rule 600 speedy-trial violation plus counsel’s failure to litigate it.
- The PCRA court held Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review and found no mandatory minimums were actually applied; it found the DNA issue did not prejudice McClenny; it concluded the bench-waiver was knowing under the totality of circumstances; and it determined Rule 600 delays were excusable or excludable such that trial began well before any adjusted run date.
- The Superior Court affirmed, deferring to the PCRA court’s factual findings and applying the Strickland/Turetsky ineffective-assistance framework where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | McClenny's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alleyne/mandatory minimums and consecutive mandatory terms where offenses arose from same incident | Alleyne renders the mandatory 5–10 terms (and consecutive application) unconstitutional and should apply to his pending collateral claim | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; trial court did not actually impose mandatory minimums and McClenny would have received the same sentences | Affirmed: Alleyne not applied retroactively; no relief because mandatory minimums were not imposed and no prejudice shown |
| DNA evidence / counsel’s stipulation to DNA results and confrontation implications | Trial counsel ineffectively stipulated to DNA specialist’s report without consulting McClenny; further testing of oral swab might have supported consensual-defense and undermined victim’s testimony | DNA oral swab had only trace sperm; no DNA profile could be generated; counsel’s stipulation did not prejudice outcome | Affirmed: PCRA court found no reasonable probability of a different outcome; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Jury-trial waiver adequacy (no written waiver; brief colloquy) | Waiver invalid because Rule 620 written form not executed and colloquy was insufficient; counsel failed to protect right to jury | Waiver can be validated by totality of circumstances and counsel’s strategic advice; inadequate colloquy is analyzed under ineffectiveness standards | Affirmed: waiver knowing and voluntary under totality (prior jury experience, intelligence, counsel advice); no prejudice shown from counsel’s conduct |
| Rule 600 speedy-trial claim and counsel’s failure to file Rule 600 motion | Over 400 days delay attributable to Commonwealth; trial counsel ineffective for not filing Rule 600; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it | Much of the delay was excludable or excusable (defendant continuances, court scheduling/E.P.D.); any Rule 600 motion would have been premature; counsel’s ineffectiveness not shown | Affirmed: adjusted run date was Feb. 7, 2010; trial April 30, 2009 was timely; Rule 600 claim fails and ineffectiveness prongs not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts that increase punishment must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Mallory, 941 A.2d 686 (Pa. 2008) (waiver colloquy is procedural; validity of waiver judged by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (ineffective-assistance claims analyzed under standard principles on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sets out three-prong test for ineffective assistance in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 600 mechanics: 365-day mechanical run date and excusable/excludable delays)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denial)