Com. v. Roser, H.
Com. v. Roser, H. No. 1533 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On June 1, 2014, Harry C. Roser was stopped after driving onto a cement median and nearly striking a police officer; officers observed signs of heavy intoxication and his BAC tested .300%.
- Roser pleaded guilty on April 21, 2015 to DUI (highest rate, second offense) after a full colloquy; sentencing occurred June 17, 2015.
- At sentencing the court heard victim-impact and character testimony about repeated harassment of an ex-girlfriend; Roser received 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment.
- Roser filed a timely motion for reconsideration (denied) but did not file a direct appeal; he filed a pro se PCRA petition on December 7, 2015 and counsel was appointed.
- PCRA counsel submitted a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and sought to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on May 4, 2016 and permitted counsel to withdraw.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the PCRA petition (no genuine issue of material fact) but vacated the court-imposed "no contact" parole condition as beyond the sentencing court’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Roser’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing | Roser contends counsel failed to object to or preserve sentencing-related errors and ambush evidence | Counsel’s performance was not shown to have arguable merit or prejudice; claims were inadequately developed | Waived / rejected for lack of developed argument; PCRA court did not err in dismissing on this ground |
| 2. Due process at sentencing (unnoticed testimony / "ambush") | Roser asserts ex-girlfriend’s testimony and other evidence were introduced without notice, violating due process | Record shows PCRA petition failed to raise material facts and alleged surprises were not shown to require relief | Dismissal without hearing affirmed — no genuine issue of material fact requiring a hearing |
| 3. Legality of sentence conditions (no-contact/parole conditions) | Roser challenges court-imposed conditions prohibiting contact with ex-girlfriend and social-media restrictions | Commonwealth maintains sentence valid; court retained authority to advise parole conditions | Court lacked authority to impose parole conditions; vacated the no-contact condition as illegal (portion of sentence vacated) |
| 4. PCRA court’s denial without an evidentiary hearing | Roser argued withheld/exculpatory evidence and need for testimony would create material factual disputes | PCRA court asserted no genuine issues of material fact and no entitlement to automatic hearing | Affirmed: no evidentiary hearing required because record supplied no genuine material factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when claims lack arguable merit)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988) (paired with Turner on counsel withdrawal/no-merit letters)
- Commonwealth v. Mears, 972 A.2d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2009) (court cannot impose parole conditions; such conditions are advisory)
- Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Board of Probation and Parole has exclusive authority over parole conditions)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Laird, 119 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2015) (prejudice requirement for ineffective assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Rounsley, 717 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 1998) (post-plea collateral relief limited to validity of plea and legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (liberal construction for pro se filings but must meet appellate rules)