Com. v. Reeve, O.
Com. v. Reeve, O. No. 2712 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Appellant Omar Reeve filed a timely pro se collateral appeal from the Philadelphia County PCRA court order denying relief.
- Appellant raised eight claims: two alleged trial-court errors (issues 6 and 8) and six ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims (issues 1–5 and 7).
- The two trial-court error claims were not raised on direct appeal.
- Appellant contended trial and appellate counsel failed to challenge a mandatory minimum sentence; the court found no mandatory minimum was imposed.
- Five IAC claims related to events at trial but the certified record lacked the trial transcripts necessary to review those claims.
- The record contained no indication Appellant requested the missing transcripts per Pa.R.A.P. 1911 or the local Philadelphia transcript-order rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial-court error claims (issues 6 & 8) are reviewable on PCRA | Reeve argued trial-court errors warrant collateral relief | Commonwealth argued those issues were waived because they could have been raised on direct appeal | Waived: claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred under PCRA standards |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging an alleged mandatory minimum sentence (issue 1) | Reeve contended counsel failed to challenge a mandatory minimum sentence | Commonwealth/court observed no mandatory minimum sentence was imposed, so no basis for challenge | Denied: no mandatory minimum existed, so no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for actions at trial (issues 2–5, 7) | Reeve claimed multiple trial-based IAC errors | Commonwealth argued claims cannot be adjudicated because trial transcripts are not in the certified record and appellant did not follow transcript-request rules | Waived: claims dependent on missing transcripts are forfeited where appellant failed to obtain or order transcripts per Pa.R.A.P. 1911 and local rule |
| Whether the appellate court should order or obtain missing transcripts | Reeve implicitly sought review despite missing transcripts | Commonwealth relied on precedent that appellate courts are not responsible for obtaining transcripts | Denied: appellate courts will not order or obtain transcripts; absence of record items causes waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural context cited regarding PCRA counsel withdrawal procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedural guidance on counsel withdrawal in collateral appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellant responsible for ensuring certified record contains necessary items)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) (appellate courts are not responsible for obtaining transcripts; claims dependent on missing transcripts are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Petroll, 696 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. 1997) (claims reliant on materials not in the certified record are waived)
Order affirmed.