History
  • No items yet
midpage
Com. v. Perez, D.
363 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • On May 13, 2012 three masked men robbed occupants of an apartment behind Francisco’s Pizza; victims were threatened and property taken. Appellant Perez was identified by voice by two witnesses and later confessed to an acquaintance.
  • Perez was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of robbery, related conspiracies, and terroristic threats and sentenced on April 17, 2013 to an aggregate 11–25 years’ imprisonment.
  • Perez filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (June 19, 2015); counsel was appointed, amended petitions were filed, and an evidentiary hearing occurred on October 24, 2016. The PCRA court denied relief on February 6, 2017.
  • Perez raised 19 ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims (various alleged omissions) and one Alleyne-based challenge to mandatory minimum exposure under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.
  • The Superior Court affirmed denial of all ineffective-assistance claims (finding boilerplate allegations, failure to overcome PCRA factual findings, and lack of record support), but vacated and remanded the Alleyne claim for factfinding because the record did not clearly show whether a mandatory minimum under § 9712 was in fact applied at sentencing.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Perez) Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA Court) Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective on numerous grounds Counsel failed to pursue witnesses, motions, or strategies Perez wanted; these failures lacked reasonable basis and caused prejudice PCRA court found claims largely boilerplate; counsel had strategic reasons or witnesses lacked credibility; petitioner failed to meet PCRA burden Denied — Superior Court affirmed rejection of all 19 IAC claims (petitioner didn’t overcome factual findings or show prejudice)
Whether Alleyne invalidates Perez’s sentence if § 9712 mandatory minimums were applied Perez argued Alleyne renders mandatory-minimum impositions that were not jury-found invalid and requires vacatur/resentencing PCRA court treated Alleyne as not retroactive on collateral review and denied relief Vacated in part and remanded — Superior Court held Alleyne applies where decided before direct review ended; remanded to determine whether a § 9712 mandatory minimum was actually applied at sentencing
Whether sentencing transcript and records show a mandatory minimum was imposed Perez contends sentencing referenced gun-related mandatory effect; sentencing materials ambiguous Commonwealth contends only sentencing enhancements / guidelines were used (not a mandatory minimum) Remanded — factual record inadequate to resolve whether a mandatory minimum was applied; PCRA court to make that factual determination
Whether boilerplate/patent allegations satisfy PCRA burden Perez relied on repeated boilerplate assertions of no reasonable basis and prejudice Commonwealth and courts argue boilerplate allegations are insufficient absent record support and rebuttal of PCRA factual findings Held — boilerplate allegations insufficient; petitioner failed to carry burden on IAC claims

Key Cases Cited

  • Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287 (Pa. 2017) (PCRA standards for collateral claims and preservation)
  • Commonwealth v. Simpson, 112 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2015) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
  • Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (scope of appellate review of PCRA court findings)
  • Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431 (Pa. 2011) (boilerplate allegations insufficient to prove counsel ineffective)
  • Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element that must be found by a jury)
  • Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne applies when decided before direct review concluded)
  • Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (invalidating portions of § 9712 under Alleyne)
  • Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super. 2015) (remedy and resentencing when mandatory minimum applied in violation of Alleyne)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Com. v. Perez, D.
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Nov 9, 2017
Docket Number: 363 MDA 2017
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.