Com. v. Taft, R.
254 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Taft pled guilty on April 14, 2014 to failing to comply with sexual-offender registration; on May 30, 2014 he received a 3–10 year sentence (three-year mandatory minimum). He did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- Taft filed a timely PCRA petition (March 2, 2015) claiming plea/trial counsel was ineffective for advising a plea that produced an “illegal” sentence based on an allegedly incorrect Michigan prior.
- PCRA counsel reviewed the file, filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and motion to withdraw; the PCRA court granted withdrawal, issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and dismissed Taft’s petition on December 18, 2015.
- Taft appealed pro se, raising (1) entitlement to new PCRA counsel after counsel withdrew, (2) plea counsel ineffective for inducing an illegal sentence based on an erroneous prior record, (3) PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to investigate newly discovered evidence, and (4) PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to challenge need for SVP reevaluation.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record and colloquies (guilty plea and sentencing) and affirmed dismissal, holding Taft’s sentence was legal, his plea was knowing and voluntary, and PCRA counsel’s withdrawal under Turner/Finley precluded appointment of new counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Taft's Argument | Commonwealth/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new PCRA counsel must be appointed after appointed counsel withdraws on a no-merit basis | Taft: Rule 904/122 entitles him to counsel continuing through appeal | Court: When counsel validly withdraws under Turner/Finley after vindicating the right to counsel, no new appointment is required | Denied — no new counsel required; Taft may proceed pro se or retain counsel |
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for advising a plea that produced an illegal sentence due to an incorrect Michigan prior | Taft: Counsel failed to obtain correct Michigan conviction info, causing an illegal mandatory-minimum sentence | Court: Sentence was within statutory range; plea was open and knowingly entered after advisements | Denied — plea voluntary; sentence legal |
| Whether newly discovered Michigan documents required relief or investigation by PCRA counsel | Taft: A nolle prosequi and related document show prior was different and required investigation | Court: Document was decades old and discoverable with diligence; Taft failed to show it would change the outcome | Denied — not newly discoverable and not outcome-determinative |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to seek reevaluation of SVP status | Taft: PCRA counsel should have challenged or sought reevaluation of SVP classification | Court: No statutory right to periodic reevaluation alleged; Taft did not show he requested such a petition | Denied — claim meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedure for counsel withdrawal in post-conviction representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no-merit letter / withdrawal procedure in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no new counsel required after proper Turner/Finley withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Kelley, 136 A.3d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for ineffective assistance claims and plea-related prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (standards for newly discovered evidence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Haughwart, 837 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 2003) (procedures for SVP evaluation)