Com. v. Vales, T.
1076 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 13, 2022Background:
- Vales, a military veteran with a 35-year history of crimen falsi convictions, pled guilty in 2017 and was sentenced to three years’ probation.
- In 2019 Vales committed new crimen falsi offenses and multiple technical probation violations (e.g., cutting off leg band, unplugging EHM, failing to pay restitution); the court held a VOP hearing and revoked probation, imposing 4½ to 13½ years’ incarceration.
- At the VOP hearing counsel argued mitigation based on Vales’ JRS compliance and history of sexual abuse; the court relied on a 2017 PSI (Vales declined an updated PSI) and found repeated failures to engage in treatment.
- Vales later filed a PCRA petition claiming VOP counsel was ineffective for not introducing Veteran’s Administration treatment records showing progress; PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without a hearing.
- Vales appealed; the Superior Court reviewed the record, applied the Strickland/Fears ineffectiveness framework, and affirmed dismissal, holding the records would not have changed the outcome and counsel had a reasonable basis for not offering them.
Issues:
| Issue | Vales' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VOP counsel was ineffective for not introducing VA treatment records | VA records existed and would have shown progress, so counsel’s omission lacked merit | Court already knew of history/treatment; counsel raised mitigation; omission had reasonable basis | No ineffectiveness — counsel not shown unreasonable and no prejudice |
| Whether omission lacked any reasonable strategic basis | Vales: no strategy justified withholding records | Commonwealth: counsel reasonably relied on available mitigation and court’s knowledge; Vales declined updated PSI | Court: reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions |
| Whether Vales suffered prejudice from omission | Vales: records would have produced a more lenient sentence | Commonwealth: given Vales’ new convictions, long recidivism, and technical violations, records wouldn’t change outcome | No prejudice — no reasonable probability of different result |
| Whether sentencing/Sentencing Guidelines claim is cognizable on PCRA | Vales: argues court failed to consider rehabilitative needs / guidelines | Commonwealth: discretionary sentencing claims are not cognizable on PCRA; guidelines inapplicable to probation revocation | Court: claim not cognizable; even on merits guidelines inapplicable and sentence appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sets out three‑part test for ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA adjudications)
- Commonwealth v. Fish, 752 A.2d 921 (Pa. Super. 2000) (grounds for imposing total confinement after probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (procedural rule on filing separate notices of appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary‑aspects‑of‑sentencing claims not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Sentencing Guidelines not applicable to probation‑revocation sentences)