Com. v. Roucroft, F.
1734 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 18, 2022Background
- Appellant Frank Roucroft was convicted after a non-jury trial of PWID, use of a communication facility, and conspiracy; sentenced October 31, 2019 to 4½ to 10 years. He did not file a post‑sentence motion or direct appeal.
- Roucroft filed a pro se PCRA petition in September 2020; counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit submission (styled as an Anders brief) and a petition to withdraw.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (Aug. 10, 2021) limited to whether trial counsel (Sean Cullen, Esquire) was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal after Roucroft allegedly requested one.
- Trial counsel testified he advised Roucroft of post‑sentence and appeal rights on two occasions (immediately after sentencing and at a November 5, 2019 prison visit), memorialized the meeting in a letter, and that Roucroft told him not to appeal.
- Roucroft testified he told counsel to file an appeal and believed he had done so; he did not produce corroborating documentation and did not recall receiving the November 5 letter.
- The PCRA court credited counsel’s testimony over Roucroft’s, denied relief, and the Superior Court affirmed after conducting an independent review and granting PCRA counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roucroft) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal after Roucroft requested one | Roucroft says he instructed counsel to file a direct appeal at sentencing and shortly thereafter | Counsel testified he advised Roucroft of appeal rights twice, provided a written memorialization, and that Roucroft declined to appeal | PCRA court found counsel credible, rejected Roucroft’s testimony; Superior Court deferred to credibility findings and affirmed denial of PCRA relief |
| Whether PCRA counsel complied with Turner/Finley and may withdraw | Roucroft implicitly challenges counsel’s withdrawal (filed an Anders‑style brief) | PCRA counsel submitted a no‑merit brief, petition to withdraw, and notice to Roucroft of right to proceed pro se or retain counsel | Superior Court found substantial compliance with Turner/Finley, performed independent review, agreed no meritorious issues existed, and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeals are frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner/Finley procedure for PCRA counsel no‑merit filings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (companion to Turner specifying technical requirements for withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589 (Pa. Super. 2016) (describes court’s duty to independently review no‑merit submissions)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (deference to PCRA court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (ineffectiveness presumption and three‑prong test)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (failure to establish any prong of ineffectiveness test is fatal)
- Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891 (Pa. 2021) (recent reinforcement of deference to PCRA credibility determinations)