Com. v. Watley, A.
645 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Andre Raymelle Watley pleaded guilty (July 1, 2015) to robbery, terroristic threats, and aggravated assault and was sentenced to an aggregate 6–20 years; he did not take a direct appeal.
- Watley filed a pro se PCRA petition (June 7, 2016); counsel (Madsen, then Karam) were appointed and an amended PCRA petition was litigated at an evidentiary hearing (Oct. 25, 2016).
- PCRA counsel Karam submitted a Turner/Finley no‑merit (No‑Merit) letter and sought to withdraw; the PCRA court notified Watley and then dismissed his Amended PCRA Petition on Jan. 27, 2017.
- Watley appealed pro se raising numerous claims: adequacy of the Finley letter, PCRA counsel’s effectiveness (failure to present a witness affidavit from George J. Groller, request continuance, preserve claims), Brady/discovery claims, Rule 600/statute of limitations, and multiple alleged failures by plea counsel (investigation, consultation, identification challenge, appeal).
- The Superior Court reviewed the PCRA court’s reasoning and affirmed: it found the Finley letter adequate, many claims waived (not preserved), claims based on investigation not cognizable or meritless, and plea colloquy and counsel performance did not establish ineffective assistance entitling relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watley) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and PCRA counsel withdrawal | Karam’s Finley letter failed to detail nature/extent of review, list issues, or explain why pro se issues (including Brady) lacked merit; court erred permitting withdrawal and should have appointed new counsel | Karam’s letter described his review (docket, file, transcript), discussed the issues and explained lack of merit; PCRA court properly reviewed and accepted the letter | Court held Finley letter sufficient; withdrawal proper and no new counsel required |
| Failure to present Groller affidavit / newly discovered evidence | Groller’s affidavit (not previously in petitions) would show Watley was not seen entering victim’s home and support actual innocence; PCRA counsel was ineffective for not presenting it or seeking continuance | Claim was not raised earlier (waived); even if considered, Groller’s testimony would not likely compel a different result given multiple strong eyewitnesses and accomplice testimony | Waived; alternatively meritless — would not have produced a different outcome |
| Brady/discovery (victim’s report to prison counselor) | Commonwealth withheld exculpatory statement that would show misidentification; plea counsel and PCRA counsel should have pursued it | Watley waived nonjurisdictional claims by pleading guilty and failed to raise the Brady claim on direct appeal; no entitlement to relief | Waived and not a basis for PCRA relief after guilty plea; claim rejected |
| Ineffective assistance of plea counsel (plea voluntariness, investigation, failure to file motions/appeal) | Plea counsel filled out/read colloquy without letting Watley review/initial, failed to investigate, interview alibi witnesses, file omnibus motions (Rule 600, statute of limitations, suppress ID), and failed to file an appeal as requested | Record shows counsel consulted with Watley multiple times, Watley affirmed in court he filled out and understood the written colloquy and was satisfied with counsel; statute of limitations and Rule 600 claims lacked merit; counsel made reasonable strategic choices (e.g., not filing frivolous suppression) | Plea was knowing and voluntary; counsel’s performance did not establish the requisite prejudice — ineffective assistance claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (describing counsel’s duties and required contents of a no‑merit letter for withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (explaining standards for court review of no‑merit letters and counsel withdrawal)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2007) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects, including discovery violations)
- Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements of a valid plea colloquy and plea withdrawal standard)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (three‑part test for ineffective assistance under the PCRA)