Com. v. Rodriguez, O.
Com. v. Rodriguez, O. No. 2382 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- On Sept. 22, 2010, Omar Rodriguez pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) to third-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime after confessing to stabbing the victim multiple times; court sentenced him to an aggregate 20–40 years and $125 restitution.
- Rodriguez did not file a direct appeal.
- On Sept. 22, 2011, Rodriguez timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, later amended by counsel, alleging (inter alia) ineffective assistance of trial/plea counsel — specifically that counsel failed to explain the charges, the sentence exposure, collateral consequences, and that counsel failed to file a direct appeal.
- The PCRA court (trial judge) dismissed the petition without a hearing after Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice; Rodriguez appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that the plea colloquy and record show the plea was knowing and voluntary and that Rodriguez failed to carry his burden on the defective-appeal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal? | Rodriguez alleges family asked counsel to file an appeal and counsel did not do so. | No proof Rodriguez or anyone requested counsel to file an appeal; mere allegation insufficient. | Denied — petitioner failed to prove he requested an appeal, so no per se prejudice under Lantzy. |
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to explain the charges and sentence exposure? | Counsel did not fully explain the charges, minimum sentence, or consequences, so plea was unknowing/invalid. | Plea colloquy and record expressly informed Rodriguez of charges, penalties, negotiated 20–40 year sentence, and he acknowledged satisfaction with counsel. | Denied — plea was knowing and voluntary; claim lacks merit. |
| Did counsel fail to advise about collateral consequences of plea (e.g., probation/parole, immigration)? | Counsel omitted explanation of collateral effects, undermining voluntariness. | Court advised Rodriguez about limited appellate rights and certain collateral effects; collateral-consequence claim irrelevant absent unlawfully induced plea. | Denied — no unlawful inducement shown and petitioner is bound by colloquy statements. |
| Was a PCRA hearing required? | Rodriguez sought evidentiary development (e.g., affidavits about appeal request). | Record established no genuine material factual dispute; petitioner did not supply affidavits/witnesses to meet burden. | Denied — no hearing required; dismissal without hearing affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (ineffective-assistance test for guilty pleas; plea must be knowing and voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-prong ineffectiveness standard)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (counsel’s unjustified failure to initiate a requested appeal is per se prejudicial)
- Commonwealth v. Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1999) (petitioner must prove he requested an appeal and counsel disregarded it)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa.) (ineffectiveness relating to guilty plea provides relief only if it caused an involuntary or unknowing plea)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (prejudice requirement; verdict/sentence would likely differ but for counsel’s errors)