Com. v. McNeil, M.
Com. v. McNeil, M. No. 931 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- Michael McNeil pled guilty on April 2, 2013 to Sexual Assault, Corruption of Minors, and Luring a Child for forcing a 16‑year‑old to perform oral sex; several other charges were nolle prossed under a plea agreement.
- The court imposed sentence on one count on April 2, 2013 (5–10 years) but deferred sentencing on the remaining counts pending an SVP assessment; final sentencing on all counts occurred July 12, 2013, for an aggregate 6–12 years.
- McNeil did not file a direct appeal. He filed a pro se PCRA petition on July 7, 2014 (claimed within one year of final judgment).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter arguing the petition was untimely; the PCRA court dismissed McNeil’s petition as untimely on March 4, 2016 and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
- The Superior Court held the PCRA court erred in deeming the petition untimely because the judgment became final 30 days after the completed, bifurcated sentencing (i.e., August 12, 2013), making the July 2014 PCRA timely. Nonetheless, the Court affirmed on the merits: guilty‑plea ineffectiveness claims lacked arguable merit and a suppression claim was waived.
Issues
| Issue | McNeil's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition was timely because final judgment occurred after completion of bifurcated sentencing (within one year of July 7, 2014 filing) | Petition untimely based on earlier partial sentencing date | Court: PCRA court erred; judgment final after completion of sentencing (August 12, 2013) so petition was timely, but relief denied on other grounds |
| Ineffective assistance re: guilty plea coercion | Counsel coerced plea by telling him he faced 25‑to‑life, rendering plea involuntary | Counsel’s advice was reasonable given exposure to multiple first‑ and second‑degree felonies; plea produced substantial benefit (nolle prossed counts) | Court: Claim lacks arguable merit; plea was knowingly, voluntarily entered and counsel had a reasonable basis to advise plea |
| Ineffective assistance re: failure to file suppression motions (Miranda/DNA) | Counsel refused to challenge Miranda warnings and DNA collection, which would have made plea involuntary or altered outcome | Claim was not raised in the PCRA petition proper; McNeil’s supplemental filing was unauthorized so claim is waived | Court: Claim waived for lack of leave to amend; PCRA court did not err in denying relief on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2009) (SVP determination is component of judgment of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (ineffective assistance standard for plea cases)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (counsel’s plea advice governed by competence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (unauthorized PCRA supplements are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012) (amendments to PCRA petitions require court leave)