Com. v. McClenton, M.
2530 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Michael McClenton was convicted by a jury of attempted burglary, conspiracy, and criminal trespass in June 2011; sentencing was continued so the Commonwealth could determine whether § 9714 applied as a second- or third-strike.
- In August 2011 the court found a "second strike" and imposed 10–20 years for attempted burglary plus a consecutive 5–10 years for conspiracy; the trespass merged with burglary.
- Appellant’s direct appeal was unsuccessful; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2013.
- McClenton filed a timely first PCRA petition (2014) asserting: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for poor plea advice, and (2) that his § 9714 mandatory-minimum sentence was illegal/unconstitutional for lack of pretrial notice.
- The Commonwealth conceded the court had sentenced both inchoate offenses in error and moved to dismiss other claims; the PCRA court vacated the conspiracy sentence at resentencing but denied relief on the ineffective-assistance and § 9714 challenges after hearing the appellant’s testimony and finding him not credible.
- McClenton appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA court’s credibility findings and legal conclusions were supported by the record and controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McClenton) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing and rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s alleged failure to advise about a plea offer | Counsel failed to give accurate advice about a generous plea offer; McClenton would have accepted but-for counsel’s advice | PCRA court examined record, heard McClenton testify, found him not credible and that he failed to show counsel’s ineffective assistance or prejudice under Lafler/Steckley | Denied — no abuse of discretion; credibility findings supported and claim lacked merit |
| Whether § 9714 mandatory-minimum sentence is illegal/unconstitutional for lack of pretrial notice (and under Alleyne) | Sentence is illegal because information did not notify him § 9714 would apply; Alleyne makes statute unconstitutional without jury finding | § 9714 does not require notice before conviction; statute requires reasonable notice before sentencing, which occurred here; Bragg and Alleyne precedent do not invalidate § 9714 as applied | Denied — claim waived for lack of briefing and without merit on the merits; statute applied properly and consistent with Bragg/Alleyne |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Steckley, 128 A.3d 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for showing prejudice when ineffective assistance led to rejecting a plea)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA court credibility determinations are binding if supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of PCRA petition without evidentiary hearing)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice test when ineffective assistance leads to rejection of plea offer)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury, subject to exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior-conviction exception allows mandatory minimum under § 9714 without jury finding)