Com. v. Miles, J., Sr.
558 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Jeffrey Eldon Miles, Sr. was convicted of first-degree murder in 2014 and sentenced to life; trial counsel remained as attorney of record but did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- Within the 30-day appeal period Miles filed a pro se "Direct Appeal for Denial of Mistrial," complaining jurors saw him handcuffed; the clerk forwarded the filing to trial counsel per Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(A)(4).
- The trial court entered an order advising Miles to either waive counsel and proceed pro se or discuss the filing with his attorney; no further action was taken and counsel did not file an appeal.
- Miles filed a PCRA petition asserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and for not filing a suppression motion; a PCRA hearing was held where counsel admitted reviewing Miles’s pro se filing but said he believed the appeal would be unsuccessful.
- The PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court reversed and remanded, concluding counsel was ineffective for failing to consult about a direct appeal despite having notice of Miles’s pro se appeal request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miles) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal | Miles: He filed a timely pro se notice of appeal; counsel reviewed it and thus had notice of Miles’s desire to appeal. | Counsel: He reviewed the filing but believed the appeal would fail and relied on the trial court’s order directing Miles to contact counsel if he wanted to appeal. | Held: Counsel was ineffective for failing to consult and thus deprived Miles of his right to effective assistance; direct-appeal rights reinstated nunc pro tunc on remand. |
| Whether counsel had a reasonable basis to not file a suppression motion | Miles: Counsel failed to file suppression motions despite being a proper avenue. | Counsel: He previously litigated suppression in a related case and believed it would not succeed here. | Held: Court declined to reach this issue given relief granted on appeal-rights ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lantzy v. Commonwealth, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (failure to file a requested direct appeal is per se prejudice and counsel is ineffective)
- Markowitz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishes per se ineffective assistance from failure to consult scenario)
- Bath v. Commonwealth, 907 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2006) (counsel must consult when there is reason to think a defendant would want to appeal)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (counsel has constitutional duty to consult about an appeal when defendant likely would want to appeal)
- Donaghy v. Commonwealth, 33 A.3d 12 (Pa. Super. 2011) (counsel’s belief that appeals lack merit does not excuse failure to consult)