Com. v. Rodriguez-Saez, F., Jr.
535 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Police surveilled Appellant (Rodriguez-Saez) and observed a hand-to-hand drug transaction; officers later saw him with cash and rubber bands indicative of heroin packaging.
- After Miranda warnings, Appellant initially admitted selling heroin to support his habit; officers recovered heroin packets, two cell phones, and cash on his person and found additional packets in nearby areas.
- A jury convicted Appellant of possession with intent to deliver (heroin) and two possession counts; he was sentenced to an aggregate 3–12 years.
- Appellant pursued a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate/prepare regarding an alleged third-party dealer ("Jessie Krick") and (2) advising him not to testify because prior drug-sale convictions would be admissible.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, found trial strategy had reasonable bases, concluded Appellant failed to prove prejudice, and denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel ineffectively failed to investigate third-party (Jessie Krick) | Counsel did not investigate Krick, who Appellant said was the true dealer; proper investigation would have shown drugs belonged to Krick and undermined dealer charges | Counsel reasonably pursued a defense that Appellant was a user, not a dealer; Appellant offered no evidence Krick would have admitted culpability or been implicated | Denied — court found arguable merit but no prejudice given overwhelming evidence of dealer activity |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising Appellant not to testify | Appellant contends prior drug-sale convictions (12+ years old) would not have been admissible, so he was improperly discouraged from testifying | Prior convictions and Appellant’s own pretrial confession could be used to rebut a user-only claim; counsel’s advice was reasonable and nonprejudicial | Denied — court found counsel’s advice reasonable and no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 936 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court notice error can constitute governmental interference excusing untimely PCRA filings)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (courts may grant relief for breakdown in court processes)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (where prejudice cannot be shown, ineffectiveness claim may be denied on that ground)
- Commonwealth v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2003) (counsel not ineffective for pursuing meritless claim)
- Commonwealth v. Douglas, 645 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1994) (counsel actions will not be deemed ineffective if any reasonable basis exists)
- Commonwealth v. Saxton, 532 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1987) (prior offenses may be admissible to rebut testimony creating favorable inferences for the accused)
- Commonwealth v. Powers, 577 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1990) (similar rule on use of prior offenses to rebut defendant testimony)