Com. v. Stout, M.
Com. v. Stout, M. No. 1600 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Mark Luke Stout pled guilty in two Luzerne County dockets to numerous counts of child pornography and related offenses in September 2014 and March 2015; aggregate sentence was 7½ to 15 years within the standard range.
- Stout received credit for 275 days served pre-sentencing and filed post-sentence motions that were denied; an appeal was filed but later discontinued after counsel filed an Anders brief.
- Stout filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and was permitted to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition.
- Stout appealed pro se; the PCRA court had previously warned him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which he filed late, but the Superior Court declined to deem his claims waived for that reason.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) Stout’s ineffectiveness claim was undeveloped and (2) his plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered, so no prejudice from counsel’s alleged omission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to file motion to withdraw plea | Stout: counsel ignored his written request to file a motion to withdraw; outcome would differ if filed | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Stout did not plead or develop the elements of an ineffectiveness claim or show why withdrawal would be warranted | Denied — claim undeveloped; plea was knowing and voluntary, so no prejudice shown |
| Waiver for failure to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement | Stout did not timely file statement (late November) | Commonwealth argued waiver per Castillo; court found no service-date on docket so declined to find waiver | Not waived on that procedural ground; court reviewed merits anyway |
| Right to counsel at arraignment and preliminary hearing | Stout asserted denial of counsel at early proceedings | Commonwealth/PCRA court: issue was not included in 1925(b) statement and not developed in brief | Waived and undeveloped; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standard for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 795 A.2d 935 (Pa. 2001) (undeveloped ineffectiveness arguments fail)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2006) (undeveloped claims of prior counsel’s ineffectiveness insufficient for PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 612 A.2d 1077 (Pa. Super. 1992) (no prejudice where plea was voluntary despite counsel’s failure to file motion to withdraw)