Com. v. Onzik, J.
157 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Appellant Joseph Onzik pled guilty to multiple offenses including burglary, theft, resisting arrest, criminal conspiracy, and false identification on February 17, 2015.
- On June 19, 2015, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences: aggregate 131 to 262 months’ imprisonment, sentencing Onzik as a repeat felony offender; each individual sentence fell within the standard guideline range.
- Sentencing counsel Joseph Yeager did not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal challenging the sentence.
- On July 11, 2016, Onzik filed a PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to modify/reconsider sentence.
- The PCRA court held a hearing on November 9, 2016, denied relief by order dated December 16, 2016, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post-sentence motion to modify/reconsider sentence | Onzik: counsel failed to move to modify sentence based solely on criminal history and ignored PSI, mitigating factors, and rehabilitative needs | Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel reasonably declined because all individual sentences were within the standard guideline range and no legal basis to challenge sentence existed | Denied — counsel not ineffective because the claim lacked arguable merit and the sentences were within the standard range; counsel’s decision was reasonable and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials and deference to PCRA court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA relief standards)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (presumption of counsel effectiveness and Strickland framework)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (three-prong test for ineffectiveness under Pierce)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (ineffectiveness test elements)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (prejudice requirement — reasonable probability standard)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (waiver of discretionary-sentencing claims absent post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 773 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2001) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (same — no deficiency for not filing meritless motion)
- Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994) (open plea does not bar motion for reconsideration of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentence within the standard guideline range is generally appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that a court considering a PSI has weighed relevant factors)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same presumption regarding consideration of PSI)