Com. v. Peterson, G., II
2080 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Peterson pled open guilty on July 6, 2015 to simple assault, criminal mischief and escape arising from two incidents with the same victim and an August 2014 jail absconding.
- At plea colloquy Peterson admitted guilt and acknowledged there was no sentencing agreement; he later sought supervised bail which was initially denied but later granted in writing.
- Sentencing occurred December 30, 2015 after Peterson failed to appear for an earlier date; Judge Cook imposed consecutive standard-range terms totaling 21–42 months and restitution.
- Peterson filed an untimely post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea, then a timely pro se PCRA petition raising ineffective-assistance claims against plea counsel Leslie for not filing a pre-sentence motion and for untimely filing of a post-sentence motion.
- Appointed PCRA counsel Hamme filed a Turner/Finley no-merit brief and petition to withdraw; an evidentiary PCRA hearing was held November 29, 2016, and the PCRA court denied relief the same day. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leslie was ineffective for failing to file a pre-sentence motion to withdraw the plea | Peterson says he asked Leslie immediately after the plea to file to withdraw based on actual innocence and coercion | Leslie and the court say any request was informal, driven by anger over bail denial, and later abandoned | Denied — no ineffective assistance; no fair-and-just reason shown for pre-sentence withdrawal |
| Whether Leslie was ineffective for failing to timely file a post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea | Peterson contends Leslie delayed filing the post-sentence motion, depriving him of relief | Leslie did file a motion but it was untimely; court found Peterson not credible on coercion/time‑served promise claims | Denied — prejudice not shown because post‑sentence withdrawal fails the manifest injustice standard; sentence dissatisfaction alone is insufficient |
| Whether PCRA counsel complied with Turner/Finley requirements when seeking to withdraw | Peterson argued Hamme was ineffective and should have amended the petition | Hamme submitted a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief, advised Peterson of rights, and provided required notice | Granted — court found Hamme complied with Turner/Finley and permitted withdrawal |
| Whether Peterson was entitled to new counsel or an extension to file a pro se brief on appeal | Peterson requested new counsel and more time to file a brief | The court noted no right to counsel of choice and that new issues were not identified that would justify substitution or delay | Denied — no substitute counsel warranted and extension denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ceo, 812 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (Turner/Finley framework cited)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (counsel withdrawal procedure in PCRA cases)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner companion on no‑merit submissions)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 795 A.2d 935 (Pa. 2001) (ineffective assistance PCRA test)
- Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (pre‑sentence plea withdrawal standard; liberal in favor of accused but not automatic)
- Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (manifest injustice standard for post‑sentence plea withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (statements under oath at plea colloquy binding)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims against PCRA counsel cannot be raised first on appeal)