Com. v. Ruiz, L., 1073 MDA 2017

Luis U. Ruiz entered negotiated guilty pleas on May 29, 2014 across six dockets and received an aggregate sentence of 7 to 14 years. No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed at that time.
Around May 18, 2015 Ruiz filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition.
An evidentiary PCRA hearing was held on October 19, 2016; both Ruiz and plea counsel testified about whether Ruiz requested an appeal and about counsel’s actions regarding pre-plea motions.
The PCRA court discredited Ruiz’s claim that he asked counsel to file a direct appeal, credited plea counsel’s testimony, and denied relief on June 1, 2017.
Ruiz appealed; this Court treated his notice of appeal as timely for jurisdictional purposes given prison-mailing considerations.

Issue	Ruiz's Argument	Plea Counsel / Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a requested direct appeal	Ruiz testified he asked counsel to file an appeal after sentencing	Counsel denied any request; court credited counsel’s testimony and found Ruiz not credible	Denied — no request shown, so Lantzy relief not available
Whether plea was induced by ineffective assistance (failure to file suppression motion)	Counsel should have filed a motion to suppress arrest/search; this influenced plea voluntariness	Claims were conclusory, lacked factual/legal detail and did not show plea was involuntary	Denied — claim lacked arguable merit and did not show manifest injustice
Whether counsel breached duty to consult about appellate rights under Flores–Ortega	Ruiz argued counsel failed to consult about appellate options and appeal rights	Counsel testified he discussed plea/sentence and saw no issue to appeal; no evidence counsel failed to advise or Ruiz expressed desire to appeal	Denied — Ruiz did not show circumstances triggering consultation duty or prejudice

Lantzy v. United States, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (failure to file a requested direct appeal generally constitutes ineffective assistance and prejudice under the PCRA)
Roe v. Flores–Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel’s duty to consult about appeals when a rational defendant would want to appeal or defendant shows interest; prejudice requires reasonable probability of timely appeal)
Jarosz v. Commonwealth, 152 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for reviewing PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
Allen v. Commonwealth, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa. 1999) (ineffectiveness related to guilty plea requires showing plea was involuntary/unintelligent to warrant relief)