Com. v. Singletary, D.
Com. v. Singletary, D. No. 2805 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Singletary sold cocaine to a confidential informant on three dates in April 2013; police arrested him and seized cocaine and firearms.
- He entered open guilty pleas in January 2014 to multiple PWID counts and was sentenced June 23, 2014 to 8–16 years; judgment of sentence became final July 23, 2014.
- Singletary filed a pro se PCRA petition on November 18, 2015 (facially untimely under the one‑year rule). The court appointed counsel for the first PCRA petition on December 17, 2015.
- Appointed counsel filed an amended PCRA petition on May 9, 2016 alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel (failure to file post‑sentence motion and direct appeal) and an Alleyne challenge; the amendment did not address timeliness or include required witness certifications/documents.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice; counsel did not respond, did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement on appeal, and effectively abandoned Singletary on appeal. The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on July 20, 2016.
- The Superior Court vacated and remanded, holding appointed counsel failed to meaningfully participate on Singletary’s first PCRA petition and ordering appointment of new counsel; counsel was permitted to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Singletary argued counsel preserved and pursued claims (including Alleyne) despite filing after the one‑year period. | Commonwealth argued petition was facially untimely and no exception applied. | Court held petition was facially untimely but remanded because appointed counsel failed to address timeliness as required for first PCRA petitions. |
| Ineffective assistance of plea counsel (failure to file post‑sentence motion or direct appeal) | Singletary claimed plea counsel was ineffective for not filing post‑sentence motions or a direct appeal. | Commonwealth responded via Rule 907; merits not decided due to procedural timeliness defects. | Court did not reach merits; remanded for new counsel to meaningfully evaluate and litigate these claims. |
| Alleyne claim retroactivity | Singletary sought retroactive application of Alleyne to challenge mandatory minimum sentencing. | Commonwealth treated Alleyne argument as one of the asserted claims but focused on timeliness. | Court did not resolve Alleyne retroactivity; remanded so new counsel can assess timeliness and exceptions (including Alleyne). |
| Appointed counsel’s representation / abandonment | Singletary contended he was deprived of meaningful representation because counsel failed to provide copies of filings and abandoned the appeal. | PCRA court noted counsel had been appointed but did not respond to Rule 907 or file required appellate filings. | Court held counsel failed to meaningfully participate on a first PCRA petition and effectively abandoned Singletary on appeal; ordered remand and new counsel; granted counsel leave to withdraw. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2002) (indigent first PCRA petitioners are entitled to appointed counsel who must meaningfully address timeliness and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 29 A.3d 393 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appointed counsel must continue representation through conclusion of post‑conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 836 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 2003) (remand required where court‑appointed counsel effectively abandons petitioner on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Hampton, 718 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 1998) (counsel must meaningfully participate in first PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (court must raise sua sponte right‑to‑counsel errors for first PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for court‑appointed counsel seeking to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prisoner mailbox rule for pro se filings)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)