Com. v. Ruffin, D.
378 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- David Antonio Ruffin pleaded guilty on April 6, 2015 to institutional vandalism, resisting arrest, retail theft, and disorderly conduct; sentenced May 20, 2015 to fines and an aggregate 8–30 months' imprisonment. No direct appeal was filed.
- Ruffin filed a timely first PCRA petition on July 23, 2015 alleging various defects including ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to file post-plea motions/appeal, and that he was promised time served.
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and a motion to withdraw on October 22, 2015; the Commonwealth answered; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss on December 8, 2015 and dismissed the petition on January 21, 2016.
- The PCRA court’s Notice and dismissal adopted counsel’s assessment, and the court allowed Ruffin to proceed pro se, but the record did not contain an express order authorizing counsel’s withdrawal.
- Because this was Ruffin’s first PCRA petition (entitling him to counsel on the petition and appeal), the Superior Court remanded for the PCRA court to clarify whether it permitted counsel to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Ruffin's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was properly permitted to withdraw after filing a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter in a first PCRA petition | Counsel provided ineffective assistance (failed to pursue bail reduction, post‑plea motions, appeal, and other pretrial functions); Ruffin sought new counsel or relief | PCRA court concurred that the PCRA issues lacked merit based on counsel’s Turner/Finley filing and moved to dismiss the petition; implied withdrawal | Remanded: Superior Court declined to assume withdrawal was authorized because no express order appears; PCRA court must clarify counsel’s status within 30 days |
| Whether Ruffin’s guilty plea was constitutionally defective (lack of understanding of charges/statutes) | Plea involuntary because counsel and court failed to inform him of the true nature/statute of charges | PCRA court found no meritorious claim in response to Turner/Finley letter | Not decided on merits here; treated as a PCRA claim the court found meritless; remand limited to counsel status |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in failing to file a direct appeal or other post-plea motions | Counsel failed to file an appeal or motions for reconsideration/plea enforcement | PCRA court concluded issues were meritless per Turner/Finley | Not decided on the merits; remand pertains only to counsel withdrawal issue |
| Whether sentence was illegal/excessive or imposed outside guideline ranges without reasons | Ruffin alleged promise of time served and challenge to sentence validity | PCRA court characterized this as unsupported/meritless in its Notice | Not resolved substantively; Superior Court retained jurisdiction and only remanded for the withdrawal determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (explains procedure when PCRA counsel files no‑merit letter and seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (companion to Turner on counsel withdrawal after no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Maple, 559 A.2d 953 (Pa. Super. 1989) (if PCRA court permits withdrawal based on Turner/Finley, appointment of new counsel is not required)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (prohibits hybrid representation; petitioner may proceed pro se after withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (first PCRA petition entitles petitioner to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same: right to counsel on first PCRA petition)