Com. v. Succi, J.
1935 EDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 4, 2021Background
- Appellant John Succi, a Bucks County contractor, was convicted after a lengthy trial of multiple counts including home improvement fraud, deceptive business practices, theft by deception, and insurance fraud based on widespread, multi-year deficient and abandoned construction projects.
- Victims across Pennsylvania and New Jersey testified to substantial unpaid or unperformed work, defective construction, and prepayments for materials not delivered; the trial court calculated victim losses at $1,637,152.98.
- Succi was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment; this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Succi filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel — principally for failing to preserve a discretionary-sentencing challenge and for not adequately litigating venue for out-of-county counts — which the PCRA court dismissed.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA dismissal: it held the sentencing-related claim did not present a substantial question meriting relief and the venue challenge was previously litigated and without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Succi's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve/discuss discretionary aspects of sentencing | Counsel failed to file a motion for reconsideration and omitted sentencing issues from the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; aggregate consecutive terms are excessive given nonviolent nature, age, health | No substantial question presented; appellant’s conduct was egregious and aggregate consecutive sentences were within sentencing discretion | Denied — no relief; court found no basis to disturb consecutive sentences and characterized court’s comments as referring to appellant’s "economic life," not an intent to incarcerate for natural life |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not successfully moving to dismiss or transfer venue for Philadelphia and New Jersey-related counts | Trial in Bucks County was improper for counts arising from alleged misconduct in Philadelphia and New Jersey; counsel should have preserved/pressed the venue challenge | Claim lacks merit and was previously litigated on direct appeal; appellant did not establish prejudice | Denied — claim deemed previously litigated and meritless under prior appellate disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Succi, 173 A.3d 269 (Pa. Super. 2017) (direct appeal affirmance of convictions and discussion of waived sentencing challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (standard of appellate review of PCRA court determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156 (Pa. 2015) (three-prong ineffective assistance test: arguable merit, no reasonable basis, resulting prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sentencing authority referenced by appellant; court here found it inapposite)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (courts reject a "volume discount" in sentencing for numerous offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 661 A.2d 1367 (Pa. 1995) (trial court discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Cross, 634 A.2d 173 (Pa. 1993) (burden of proving counsel ineffective rests with petitioner)