Com. v. Peralta, J.
2971 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Victim: a six‑year‑old girl assaulted in her family home after a baptism party; Appellant (Jose Luis Peralta) was a nonrelative guest who fled through a bedroom window and was arrested nearby with a sneaker found in the victim’s bedroom and blood evidence at the scene.
- Appellant was charged with multiple offenses including attempted rape of a child, indecent assault, burglary, false imprisonment, and drug possession; some sexual charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing.
- Appellant pleaded guilty then withdrew the plea; he waived a jury and was convicted at a nonjury trial of the remaining charges.
- Trial court originally sentenced Appellant to 17.5–40 years, later reduced to 15–30 years aggregate; direct appeal to this Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed, filed an amended petition and then a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter seeking permission to withdraw.
- This appeal concerns the PCRA court’s denial of relief and appellate counsel’s application to withdraw; the sole substantive PCRA claim alleged ineffective assistance for failure to include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement on direct appeal, causing waiver of a sentencing claim.
Issues
| Issue | Peralta's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for omitting a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, resulting in waiver of sentencing challenge | Counsel’s omission waived review of the sentencing claim, constituting ineffective assistance that prejudiced Peralta | The record preserved the sentencing claim in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and the brief’s argument, and this Court in fact addressed the claim on the merits in a footnote | Claim lacks arguable merit: this Court addressed the sentencing issue on the merits (despite a mistaken statement about waiver in the opinion body), so Peralta cannot show prejudice; PCRA denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on collateral appeal)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (requirements for no‑merit letter and counsel withdrawal)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (three‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (reasonableness standard for counsel strategy)
- Doty v. Commonwealth, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (procedural duties of Turner/Finley counsel and appellate review)
- Kiesel v. Commonwealth, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa. Super. 2004) (effect of omission of Rule 2119(f) when Commonwealth objects)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (related Rule 2119(f) waiver principles)
- Muzzy v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 590 (Pa. Super. 2015) (notice requirements regarding immediate right to proceed pro se or retain counsel)