Com. v. Zguro, L., Com. v. Zguro, L. No. 106 MDA 2017

Background

In 2006 Zguro pled guilty to three counts of theft by unlawful taking; sentence: 4–23 months plus 3 years probation; immediately paroled and transferred under a Massachusetts detainer.
While on supervision he absconded, accrued out-of-state charges (Nevada, Massachusetts, Colorado), failed to pay restitution, and was held on an Interstate Compact detainer; he reported serious medical issues but produced no documentation.
After multiple violations and arrests (including a 2012 Nevada conviction and a 2014 casino arrest), the trial court revoked probation and imposed 18–36 months’ imprisonment plus 3 years consecutive probation, with 29 days to pay restitution for release.
Zguro’s direct appeal rights were later reinstated via a PCRA petition claiming trial counsel failed to file a direct appeal; the Superior Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal.
Zguro filed subsequent PCRA petitions (2016); counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought withdrawal; the PCRA court denied relief without a hearing and allowed counsel to withdraw.
On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed six decipherable claims and affirmed the denial, finding most claims meritless, some previously litigated, and one waived for failure to raise in the Rule 1925(b) statement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Zguro)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial & PCRA Courts)	Held
1. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/ object to Nevada case at revocation	Gross should have investigated Nevada charges; mentioning them prejudiced revocation	Revocation was supported by absconding and failure to pay restitution regardless of Nevada matters	Denied — claim lacks arguable merit; revocation supported by other evidence
2. Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Colorado case (alleged son’s case)	Colorado matter was irrelevant and prejudicial; counsel should have objected	Revocation did not depend on Colorado charges; counsel’s performance not shown deficient	Denied — claim lacks arguable merit
3. PCRA counsel ineffective for filing no‑merit letter without full record	DeStefano sought copies but was denied; could not adequately assess claims before filing Turner/Finley letter	Counsel’s no‑merit letter described review and explained why claims were meritless; PCRA court independently reviewed record	Denied — Turner/Finley requirements satisfied; withdrawal appropriate
4. Sentence excessive / illegal	Sentence excessive given alleged innocence of Nevada charge and ongoing restitution payments; also alleges sentence is illegal	Sentence within statutory limits after revocation; not a merger/double jeopardy or Apprendi issue	Denied — previously litigated/excessiveness claim barred; not an illegal sentence under controlling tests
5. PCRA court erred by not holding evidentiary hearing	Ineffective assistance claims had arguable merit requiring a hearing	Issue not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement; thus waived	Denied — waived for failure to preserve in 1925(b) statement

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (framework for counsel withdrawal via no‑merit letter)
Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural requirements for Turner/Finley no‑merit practice)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (presumption of effective assistance; burden to prove deficiency and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (three‑part test for ineffectiveness under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (narrow definition of "illegal sentence")
Commonwealth v. Berry, 877 A.2d 479 (Pa. Super. 2005) (examples of illegal sentence categories)
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) are waived)
Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2001) (same waiver principle)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)