Com. v. Waite, H.
Com. v. Waite, H. No. 1721 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Appellant Haggon A. Waite was arrested in June 2008 and charged with possession of an instrument of crime, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm in public; several other charges were nolle prossed as part of a plea deal.
- On August 14, 2012, Waite entered a negotiated guilty plea and was sentenced the same day to 1½ to 6 years’ imprisonment; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Waite filed a pro se PCRA petition on January 22, 2013; counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition in January 2015 reiterating the original claims.
- Waite’s sole PCRA claim alleged trial counsel was ineffective for coercing/inducing the guilty plea by failing to advise that pleading guilty waived the right to appeal pretrial rulings and to raise a speedy-trial violation.
- The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the amended petition on May 26, 2016; Waite appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding the written plea colloquy and the certified record showed Waite knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights and that no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Waite that a guilty plea waived appeals of pretrial rulings (including suppression and speedy-trial claims) | Counsel failed to ensure Waite understood he would lose the right to appeal pretrial rulings, so the plea was unlawfully induced and coercive | The written plea colloquy and the court’s oral colloquy informed Waite he would lose some appellate rights; Waite signed and affirmed understanding the waiver | Denied — plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; IAC claim lacks merit |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the IAC claim | Waite argued the claim required a hearing to develop facts (e.g., counsel’s advice) | Court: claim is patently without support in the record; no genuine issue of material fact to warrant a hearing | Denied — no abuse of discretion in refusing a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of appellate review of PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA court findings will not be disturbed if supported by the record)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 104 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2014) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (claims not raised in PCRA petition are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (same principle on waiver of claims not presented in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellant bears responsibility to include necessary transcripts in the certified record)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA court may deny evidentiary hearing when claims are patently frivolous and unsupported)