Com. v. Peralta, J.
Com. v. Peralta, J. No. 2971 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Jose Luis Peralta was charged in 2011 with multiple sexual and related offenses; after plea, withdrawal, and a nonjury trial he was convicted of the remaining charges in November 2012.
- Sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years (after one count sentence vacated), appeals and petitions to higher courts were denied; Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2014.
- Peralta filed a pro se PCRA petition in August 2015; counsel was appointed, filed an amended petition, the Commonwealth answered, and the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice then denied relief on September 6, 2016.
- Appellate (PCRA) counsel moved to withdraw under Turner/Finley and submitted a no‑merit letter, but the Superior Court found deficiencies in counsel’s client notice and in translation procedures for the Spanish‑speaking appellant.
- The Superior Court denied counsel’s withdrawal petition, directing counsel to refile a compliant Turner/Finley no‑merit letter, to provide proper notice that Peralta has an immediate right to proceed pro se or with private counsel, and to ensure all documents sent to Peralta are translated with certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal procedures | Counsel argued he reviewed the case, found no meritorious issues, filed a no‑merit letter and notified client | Peralta (via court review) contended counsel’s notice was defective and translations inadequate | Withdrawal denied: counsel’s notice incorrectly stated client could only proceed pro se or retain counsel after court grants withdrawal; must be revised |
| Whether client notice must state immediate right to proceed pro se or with private counsel | Counsel provided a written notice but used language implying rights arise only after the court grants withdrawal | Peralta required clear notice that the right to proceed pro se or retain private counsel is immediate upon filing of withdrawal | Court held Muzzy requires immediate‑right language; counsel’s notice was defective and must be corrected |
| Whether documents sent to a non‑English‑proficient appellant require certified translation and filing of certification | Counsel arranged translations but had not filed certified translations initially | Peralta argued translated materials and certifications must be provided promptly | Court required certified translations be filed and directed counsel to submit certification with the revised petition |
| Whether an interpreter order was necessary at trial levels | Commonwealth noted interpreters were present but trial court did not issue a specific appointment order on the record | Peralta asserted certified interpreter was necessary at all levels given limited English proficiency | Court concluded a certified interpreter is necessary and directed proper translation and certification for filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawing in collateral appeals)
- Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley no‑merit procedure in PCRA context)
- Muzzy v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2015) (counsel must inform client of immediate right to proceed pro se or with private counsel upon filing withdrawal)
- Doty v. Commonwealth, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requirements for Turner/Finley letter and appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Daniels v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2008) (confirming review of counsel’s compliance before permitting withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 142 A.3d 863 (Pa. Super. 2016) (interpreter appointment discretion and related translation considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Peralta, 102 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2014) (direct‑appeal disposition of Peralta’s conviction)