Com. v. Vargas, A., 386 EDA 2016

Background

Appellant Adalberto Vargas pled guilty on April 14, 2011 to three counts of burglary and three counts of conspiracy; sentencing occurred June 1, 2011.
At sentencing, the court imposed an aggregate term of 7–14 years following a renegotiated plea/sentencing agreement originally before another judge.
Vargas did not file a direct appeal. He filed an untimely pro se motion in June 2013, which the court treated as his first PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and later permitted to withdraw after the court issued a Rule 907 notice that the petition was untimely.
Vargas filed a pro se “petition to correct illegal sentence” on December 7, 2015 (treated as a second PCRA petition). The trial court denied it on January 13, 2016.
Vargas appealed pro se, arguing the sentence exceeded the negotiated agreement (complaining an extra 4–8 years was imposed), that the Commonwealth and court failed to adhere to the plea, and that trial and PCRA counsel were ineffective for failing to object or preserve the claim.
The Superior Court treated the filing as a second PCRA petition, concluded it was untimely (judgment final July 1, 2011), and affirmed dismissal because Vargas failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vargas)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court)	Held
Whether the sentence was illegal because it exceeded the negotiated plea (extra 4–8 years)	Vargas contends the sentence imposed did not comply with the negotiated 7–14 year agreement and thus is illegal	Trial court and Commonwealth maintain the plea was voluntary and the sentence was within guideline range and consistent with negotiations	Court held claim not reach on merits because petition was untimely under the PCRA and no exception pleaded or proven
Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred from failure to adhere to plea terms	Vargas asserts allowing the extra term to stand would be a miscarriage of justice	Commonwealth argues sentencing followed court proceedings and plea colloquy; no timely collateral challenge	Court declined to address this because of PCRA timeliness bar
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to alleged sentencing error	Vargas alleges counsel failed to object when the court removed/erased a 4–8 year term contrary to agreement	Commonwealth notes ineffectiveness claims are cognizable but must be raised in a timely PCRA petition	Court refused to consider ineffective-assistance claims because petition was untimely and no exception shown
Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve/argue these claims	Vargas claims PCRA counsel failed to assert arguable claims, undermining reliability of proceedings	Commonwealth/trial court point out appointed counsel previously sought withdrawal on timeliness/merit grounds; appointed counsel is only guaranteed for first PCRA petition	Court again refused to reach merits of this claim due to jurisdictional untimeliness of the second petition

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the exclusive post-conviction remedy; collateral petitions after final judgment are treated as PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for denial of PCRA relief)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; courts lack authority to reach untimely petitions)
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA exceptions must be pleaded and petitions invoking them filed within 60 days of when claims could be presented)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for counsel withdrawal when PCRA claims are meritless)
Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2000) (legality of sentence and ineffectiveness claims cognizable under the PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA exceptions cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)