Com. v. Rodriguez, A.
2457 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 19, 2016Background
- On January 7, 2012, Rodriguez and another man robbed The Fish Tank Guy store; Rodriguez, armed with a .32 revolver and masked, shot the store owner, causing serious injury. Rodriguez later confessed to a pastor and gave a full statement to police.
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty (open plea) on August 1, 2012, to aggravated assault, robbery, conspiracy, and carrying a firearm without a license; on September 19, 2012 he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7½ to 15 years (concurrent mandatory five-to-ten terms plus consecutive 2½–5 years). He did not file a direct appeal.
- Rodriguez filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (May 17, 2013); counsel filed an amended petition asserting plea counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an allegedly deficient plea colloquy (failure to explain elements and sentencing ranges). He later also raised an Alleyne challenge to mandatory minimums.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; the court found the written guilty plea colloquy and the oral colloquy, taken together, showed Rodriguez understood the nature of charges, sentencing ranges, and that he was satisfied with counsel’s explanations.
- The court also rejected the Alleyne-based claim as unavailable on collateral review under Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent holding Alleyne is not retroactive to cases on collateral review.
- Rodriguez appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding counsel’s failure to object to the colloquy lacked arguable merit and Rodriguez failed to show prejudice (no reasonable likelihood he would have gone to trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the plea colloquy for not explaining elements and sentence ranges | Rodriguez: The court never explained elements or permissible sentence/fine ranges; counsel was ineffective for not objecting, making the plea unknowing and involuntary | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Written guilty plea colloquy plus oral colloquy adequately informed Rodriguez; counsel had no reasonable basis to object and no prejudice shown | Denied — claim lacks arguable merit; plea was knowing and voluntary; no prejudice shown so no hearing required |
| Whether Alleyne renders Rodriguez’s mandatory minimum sentence illegal on collateral review | Rodriguez: Alleyne renders mandatory minimum statute unconstitutional so sentence illegal | Commonwealth: Alleyne is not retroactive to collateral cases; petitioner cannot obtain relief | Denied — under Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty is an element that must be found by a jury)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for counsel ineffectiveness in guilty-plea context)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 453 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1982) (totality of circumstances can cure lack of technical recitation of elements in colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (statements under oath at plea colloquy generally bind defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (written colloquy may supplement oral colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpretation of Alleyne and mandatory-minimum statutes)