Com. v. Miley, R.
2997 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Miley, the adoptive father, pled guilty in 2010 to multiple sexual offenses involving his daughter, including rape of a child and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI); sentence ultimately 12½ to 25 years.
- A contested piece of evidence was a consensual wiretapped phone recording in which Miley appeared to admit the conduct; defense retained OWL expert to analyze whether the recording was manipulated.
- The OWL report arrived the day of the suppression hearing; plea counsel received a phone summary of the report during a lunch recess and litigated suppression issues unrelated to splicing; the court denied suppression without prejudice to argue OWL-related issues later.
- After the recess and discussing the report, Miley entered an open guilty plea the same day; he later filed to withdraw the plea after victim testimony at sentencing, which the trial court denied; the denial was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Miley pursued a PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for (1) misrepresenting the OWL report, (2) promising a five-year sentence and involving the judge in plea negotiations, (3) failing to explain IDSI elements (court misspoke ‘‘sexual intercourse’’ vs. ‘‘deviate sexual intercourse’’), and (4) delaying or failing to timely move to withdraw the plea.
- The PCRA court credited counsel’s testimony, found the underlying claims lacked arguable merit or prejudice, and denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miley) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / trial counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Counsel misrepresented OWL expert report | Counsel told Miley report showed no authenticity issues; counsel didn’t read it and induced plea | Counsel received and relayed a summary; report noted anomalies but did not conclude splicing; admissibility unaffected; Miley later received report | No relief; claim lacked arguable merit and prejudice |
| 2. Counsel promised a 5-year sentence / judge participated in negotiations | Counsel repeatedly promised a 5-year sentence and involved the judge, inducing plea | Counsel estimated a range (5–10 years) and did not promise a sentence; court merely confirmed mandatory minimum; Miley denied any promise on the record | No relief; no promise or improper judicial participation established |
| 3. Plea colloquy misstated IDSI element | Court said "sexual intercourse" instead of "deviate sexual intercourse," so plea involuntary; counsel ineffective for not correcting | The Commonwealth’s factual recitation, the information, counsel’s review, and the totality of colloquy showed Miley understood the IDSI basis | No relief; plea valid on totality of circumstances |
| 4. Counsel delayed or failed to timely move to withdraw plea | Counsel waited until after victim’s sentencing testimony (and/or didn’t preserve grounds) and thereby prejudiced Miley | Counsel moved as soon as a fair-and-just reason arose; earlier motion was not possible; claims belied by record | No relief; counsel’s timing reasonable and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (three-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (reasonable-basis inquiry for counsel strategy)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 508 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 1986) (prima facie authentication standard)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 807 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2002) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (pre-sentence plea-withdrawal standard: fairness and justice/substantial prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (factors for pre-sentence withdrawal: plausibility, sincerity, timing, and prejudice)