Com. v. Wesling, D.
Com. v. Wesling, D. No. 980 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Daniel R. Wesling was convicted by jury (Oct. 9, 2013) of multiple sexual offenses against two victims for conduct alleged to have occurred between 1990 and 2001; aggregate sentence 180–360 years.
- Wesling filed a pro se PCRA petition (Oct. 15, 2015). The court appointed Brian Gaglione to file an amended PCRA petition and extended deadlines several times.
- Instead of an amended petition, counsel filed a Turner/Finley “no‑merit” letter and a petition to withdraw (Feb. 2016), and provided a copy to Wesling. The court issued Rule 907 notice and, after independent review, agreed the claims lacked merit.
- The PCRA court denied relief and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw (Mar. 18, 2016). Wesling appealed pro se, raising claims of counsel ineffectiveness (trial and PCRA counsel), procedural errors in counsel’s withdrawal, and a statute‑of‑limitations challenge.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the PCRA court’s decision was supported by the record and free of legal error, and conducted an independent review of the Turner/Finley submission and the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesling) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether PCRA counsel improperly withdrew without amending petition | Gaglione failed to consult after review, should have filed an amended PCRA instead of a no‑merit letter; withdrawal deprived him of fair opportunity | Gaglione filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter describing review, listed issues and reasons; provided letter to Wesling; court performed independent review | Withdrawal permitted: court and Superior Court found Turner/Finley procedures satisfied and independent review agreed no merit |
| 2. Whether preliminary counsel (Spishock) was ineffective | Spishock advised waiving preliminary hearing and failed to file time‑critical pretrial motions (e.g., bill of particulars), prejudicing statute‑of‑limitations and alibi defenses | Replacement counsel filed pretrial motions (including bill of particulars); any omissions were rectified; no prejudice shown | Ineffectiveness claim denied: court found no prejudice and prior rulings supported denial |
| 3. Whether replacement trial counsel were ineffective for not securing bill of particulars / fixing offense dates | Failure to obtain precise dates prevented presentation of exculpatory evidence (receipts, bank records) and impaired statute‑of‑limitations defense | Transcript shows replacement counsel (Salnick) did raise and argue a motion for a bill of particulars; claim not meritorious | Ineffectiveness claim denied: court found bill of particulars raised and no prejudice proven |
| 4. Whether additional alleged ineffectiveness claims preserved and cognizable | Broadly alleges both counsel groups ineffective; cites transcript pages | Many asserted issues were vague, raised for first time, or not preserved in concise statement | Claims deemed too vague or waived; Superior Court affirmed waiver/failure to preserve |
| 5. Whether prosecution was time‑barred by statute of limitations | Wesling contends original amendments limited prosecution to earlier dates (5 years) and 2009 charges were untimely; argues later enlargement (2002) should not apply retroactively | Statute was amended in 2002 to extend limits; PCRA court found statute did not run and amendments were not ex post facto as applied; issue was also waived (could have been raised earlier) | Statute‑of‑limitations claim waived and, alternatively, without merit under applied statutory amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (sets out Turner/Finley withdrawal requirements and court independent review)
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials: supported by record and free of legal error)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (framework for counsel withdrawal on collateral appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner companion on collateral counsel no‑merit procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirement to forward no‑merit letter and notice to client)
- Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2006) (additional procedural requirements when counsel seeks withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2010) (failure to satisfy any prong defeats ineffectiveness claim)
- Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2011) (presumption counsel is effective; appellant bears burden)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (uncorroborated victim testimony can support conviction if believed)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (concise statement must be sufficiently specific; vague statements waive issues)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellant cannot force court to guess issues from vague statements)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) concise statement are waived)