Com. v. Watkins, M.
Com. v. Watkins, M. No. 2681 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- In 2012 Michael Watkins pled guilty to third-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy for the fatal shooting of Cornell Fisher while attempting a robbery.
- Watkins later filed a timely first PCRA petition; the PCRA court dismissed it on August 15, 2014.
- A complicated procedural history (multiple PCRA filings, prothonotary rejections, and nunc pro tunc orders) ultimately produced a timely appeal from the dismissal of the first PCRA petition.
- Watkins represented himself on appeal and alleged plea-counsel ineffective assistance claiming his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary.
- The PCRA court dismissed the first petition without a hearing; the Superior Court reviewed whether the court’s findings were supported by the record and whether Watkins established ineffective assistance under the three-prong test.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding Watkins bound by his plea-colloquy statements and that his asserted claims were either meritless or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Plea was coerced by counsel threatening a life sentence | Watkins said counsel told him he would get life if he did not plead | Trial court record: Watkins testified at plea colloquy that there were no promises or threats and he was satisfied with counsel | Denied — Watkins is bound by his in-court plea colloquy statements; claim contradicted plea testimony and fails |
| 2. Counsel ineffective for not informing Watkins of elements of 1st/2nd-degree murder | Watkins argued counsel should have ensured the court explained those higher-degree murder elements | Court: defendant only must be informed of the nature/elements of crimes to which he pleads; Watkins pled to 3rd-degree murder only | Denied — no requirement to explain elements of charges not pending; claim lacks merit |
| 3. Counsel ineffective for failing to advise that speedy-trial rights were violated | Watkins argues a speedy-trial violation existed and counsel failed to raise it before pleading | Commonwealth/PCRA: claim not raised in the first (timely) PCRA petition, thus waived for appeal | Denied — claim waived because it was not presented in the first PCRA petition |
| 4. Counsel failed to investigate forensic evidence | Watkins contends counsel did not investigate crime-scene forensic samples | Commonwealth/PCRA: claim not alleged in first PCRA petition and therefore not preserved | Denied — claim waived for appeal as not raised in the first petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review of PCRA factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (deference to PCRA court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 868 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2005) (three-prong ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (prejudice standard for plea-related ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defendant bound by statements made under oath at plea colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (manifest injustice standard for withdrawal of guilty plea)