Com. v. Rhoades, M.
Com. v. Rhoades, M. No. 3789 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Michael Rhoades and co-defendants recruited vulnerable women to live in their home and subjected them to prolonged physical and sexual abuse; one victim suffered severe burns and other injuries after being set on fire.
- Rhoades pleaded guilty in 2012 pursuant to negotiated agreements to multiple counts (aggravated assault, arson, conspiracy, false imprisonment, trafficking of persons, etc.) in exchange for the Commonwealth recommending an aggregate 15–30 year sentence and nolle pros on more serious counts. He waived a PSI and mental-health evaluation.
- Rhoades expressly stated in written and oral plea colloquies that he had never been treated for mental illness and participated actively in plea and sentencing; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Rhoades filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2013; counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and petition to withdraw. The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and ultimately denied PCRA relief in December 2015. Counsel was allowed to withdraw and Rhoades appealed pro se.
- On appeal Rhoades argued plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his psychiatric history and that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that claim (a layered claim); he also sought appointment of new counsel for meaningful post-conviction review.
Issues
| Issue | Rhoades' Argument | Commonwealth / Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rhoades is entitled to appointment of new PCRA counsel after appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter | Court should appoint competent counsel for meaningful appellate review because PCRA counsel misrepresented knowledge of Rhoades' mental‑health history and abandoned him | Once Turner/Finley withdrawal is permitted, new counsel is not required; Rykard/Maple bar appointment after counsel withdraws | Denied — no new counsel required; withdrawal under Turner/Finley ends entitlement to appointed counsel |
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Rhoades' mental health | Plea counsel should have investigated Rhoades' psychiatric history and involuntary commitments; investigation could have produced defenses, mitigation, or a better plea/sentence | Rhoades expressly denied prior treatment at plea colloquy; he displayed no indicia of mental illness at proceedings; no reasonable basis to investigate; claims speculative | Denied — counsel not ineffective; no arguable merit (no basis to investigate; no prejudice shown) |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to amend the petition to raise plea‑counsel ineffectiveness (layered claim) | PCRA counsel failed to raise plea‑counsel ineffectiveness despite being told of mental‑health history, so layered claim merited relief | Layered claim requires the underlying claim to have arguable merit; underlying plea‑counsel claim is waived (raised first in Rule 907 response) and without merit, so PCRA counsel not ineffective | Denied — layered claim fails because underlying claim lacks arguable merit and was procedurally waived |
| Whether a diminished‑capacity theory or PSI would have altered outcome | Mental‑health evidence could negate intent or yield mitigation if investigated or produce a more favorable sentence/plea | Diminished capacity is limited and inapplicable to these offenses; Rhoades pleaded to negotiated sentence and waived PSI; any benefit is speculative | Denied — diminished capacity inapplicable; prejudice not shown and relief speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for appointed counsel filing no‑merit letter and withdrawing)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no entitlement to new appointed counsel after Turner/Finley withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 872 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2005) (layered ineffectiveness: must establish three‑prong test for prior counsel first)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reasonableness of mental‑health investigation depends on what counsel knew or should have known)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 743 A.2d 907 (Pa. 2000) (no duty to investigate serious mental illness absent indicia of mental disease)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (three‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption counsel effective)
- Commonwealth v. Cuevas, 832 A.2d 388 (Pa. 2003) (diminished capacity is narrowly applicable)