Com. v. Swartz, F.
1078 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- In 2008 police linked a series of Carbon County brush fires to devices (lit cigarette in matchbook) and identified Frank Duane Swartz by a latent fingerprint and DNA; he confessed orally and in writing to setting multiple fires.
- Swartz initially pleaded guilty in Jan 2010 (4–8 years) but withdrew the plea pro se; counsel withdrew and new trial counsel was appointed and moved to suppress his confessions (denied).
- After a six‑day jury trial in Dec 2011 Swartz was convicted on multiple arson‑related counts and sentenced to an aggregate 216–432 months; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Swartz filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three grounds: (1) failure to object to AFIS testimony implying prior convictions; (2) failure to investigate internet/MapQuest evidence relevant to a Miranda timing challenge; and (3) failure to properly advise about plea deals leading to rejection of plea and a harsher sentence.
- The PCRA court held a hearing, credited trial counsel’s testimony, denied relief, and this appeal followed; the Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Swartz) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to object to AFIS testimony | Trooper’s statement that a latent print matched an image in a "criminal database" implied Swartz had prior convictions and counsel should have moved for mistrial | The reference was indirect; jury instructions cured prejudice; counsel had no meritorious objection | No ineffectiveness — underlying claim lacked arguable merit; prior direct‑appeal rejection controls |
| 2. Failure to investigate internet evidence (MapQuest) to support Miranda timing challenge | Counsel should have used MapQuest to show Swartz could not have reached the station by the time on the waiver, undermining voluntariness of confession | Counsel reasonably chose to present Swartz’s live testimony instead; multiple route options made MapQuest evidence speculative | No ineffectiveness — counsel had reasonable strategic basis; claim speculative and lacked prejudice |
| 3. Failure to advise re: plea (rejecting plea and pursuing trial) | Counsel failed to advise properly about plea offers; but for bad advice Swartz would have accepted a plea with significantly lower sentence (Lafler claim) | Counsel communicated plea offers, continued to pursue clarification with prosecutor, and believed Swartz repeatedly wanted trial; Swartz’s testimony that he would have accepted lacks corroboration | No ineffectiveness — PCRA court credited counsel; Swartz’s self‑serving testimony insufficient to show he would have accepted plea or that prejudice resulted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lesko v. Commonwealth, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005) (PCRA requires evaluation of the merits of underlying claims when assessing ineffectiveness)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 973 (Pa. 2001) (three‑part test for ineffective assistance: arguable merit, reasonable basis, prejudice)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (counsel’s duty to investigate and reasonableness standard)
- Montalvo v. Commonwealth, 641 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 1994) (need for timely/specific objection and motion for mistrial when prejudicial event occurs)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (framework for prejudice when ineffective assistance causes rejection of a plea)
- Steckley v. Commonwealth, 128 A.3d 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirements for proving counsel’s ineffective advice caused rejection of plea)