Com. v. Vamichichi, V.
3259 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- In 2001 Vamichichi and an accomplice abducted, raped, and violently beat a woman; DNA later linked Vamichichi to the crime and he was convicted in 2008.
- The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 12–24 years plus 10 years’ probation; this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied direct relief.
- Vamichichi’s first timely PCRA petition (filed 2011) successfully vacated only his unlawful-restraint conviction and prompted resentencing; his remaining convictions and an aggregate 12–24 year sentence were reinstated on resentencing.
- He appealed the resentencing; this Court affirmed and his judgment of sentence became final on August 17, 2014.
- Vamichichi filed a pro se PCRA petition on June 23, 2015 asserting ineffective assistance of resentencing counsel; the PCRA court treated it as timely but denied relief on the merits without appointing counsel.
- The Superior Court vacated that denial and remanded for appointment of counsel so Vamichichi could amend his first PCRA petition relating to resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vamichichi’s 2015 PCRA petition was timely as a first PCRA petition challenging resentencing | The petition is a timely first PCRA petition with respect to resentencing claims because his resentenced judgment became final Aug 17, 2014 | PCRA court implicitly treated petition as timely; Commonwealth did not prevail on timeliness | Court held the petition was timely as to resentencing claims (filed within one year after resentencing judgment became final) |
| Whether appointment of counsel was required for this first PCRA petition | Vamichichi—an indigent pro se litigant—was entitled to counsel on his first PCRA petition | PCRA court denied relief without appointing counsel, concluding the claim lacked arguable merit | Court held PCRA court erred by not appointing counsel; vacated order and remanded for appointment and opportunity to file amended petition |
| Whether the PCRA court could decide ineffective-assistance-of-resentencing-counsel claims on the merits without an evidentiary hearing | Vamichichi argued counsel was ineffective and he was entitled to counsel and further development of the record | PCRA court found underlying claim lacked arguable merit and prejudice, denied without hearing | Superior Court did not reach merits; remanded for counsel appointment so claims can be litigated with counsel’s assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA appeals; defer to PCRA court’s factual findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; petitions must be filed within one year unless an exception applies)
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (first successful PCRA that affects only sentence does not reset the clock for challenging convictions unrelated to resentencing; direct review from resentencing is limited to resentencing-related claims)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (limits on collateral review after partial vacatur and resentencing; scope of challenges after resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (indigent petitioners are entitled to appointment of counsel on their first PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA timeliness rules)