Com. v. Stratton, M.
489 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Marqwise Stratton was convicted after a 2009 jury trial of firearm offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years; he was acquitted of aggravated assault and resisting arrest.
- Stratton filed a pro se PCRA petition (claiming trial counsel failed to communicate a plea offer he would have accepted); direct-review rights were later exhausted and counsel was appointed for the PCRA.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and ultimately denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Stratton appealed and the trial court ordered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement that appellate counsel did not file.
- Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit brief and a petition to withdraw; the Superior Court considered whether to remand for a nunc pro tunc 1925(b) statement or decide the appeal on the merits.
- The courts agreed there was an alleged pretrial plea offer (6–20 years for guilty pleas to multiple counts) and that Stratton instead went to trial and received a lesser sentence (5–10 years); PCRA court concluded no prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to convey the offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate a plea offer | Stratton: counsel failed to inform him of a plea offer he would have accepted, causing prejudice | Commonwealth & PCRA court: offer existed but Stratton got a better result at trial, so no prejudice | Denied — court held no prejudice because sentence received at trial was more favorable than the stated plea offer |
| Whether appellate counsel’s failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement requires remand | Stratton: (implicitly) issues should be preserved or remanded for nunc pro tunc filing | Commonwealth/court: waiver rules apply but court may decide merits when record is adequate | No remand — court declined to remand because only one claim existed and the record was adequate for review |
| Whether Turner/Finley procedural requirements were satisfied for counsel’s withdrawal | Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley brief and withdrawal petition | Stratton argued counsel’s omissions caused waiver (by not filing 1925(b)) | Withdrawal granted — court found substantial compliance with Turner/Finley and no response from Stratton |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on the PCRA claim was required | Stratton sought a hearing to develop facts about the plea offer and counsel’s conduct | PCRA court: no genuine issue of material fact and hearing would serve no purpose | No hearing required — court concluded the claim lacked prejudice element and dismissed without hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective assistance standard)
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 553 Pa. 415 (Pa. 1998) (failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement generally results in waiver)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (counsel’s complete failure to file Rule 1925(b) is presumptively ineffective; remand often required)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (counsel must inform defendant of formal plea offers)
- Commonwealth v. Copeland, 554 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 1988) (elements to prove prejudice from failure to convey plea: offer made; not conveyed; no reasonable basis for failure; prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Bond, 819 A.2d 33 (Pa. 2002) (only claims presented to PCRA court are preserved for appellate review)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no-merit brief procedures for PCRA counsel )