Commonwealth v. Allen
48 A.3d 1283
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Thomas Ray Allen appeals nunc pro tunc from the PCRA denial following his first petition under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
- Trial counsel filed a pro hac vice admission on his own behalf in May 2007; court granted the admission while the counsel remained Ohio-licensed.
- In June 2007, Columbus Bar Association filed disciplinary complaints against trial counsel, which were not disclosed to the court or Appellant.
- Trial ended in a May 2007 verdict with multiple counts of drug-related offenses; sentencing followed in August 2007.
- In 2008 Ohio temporarily suspended counsel; reinstatement conditioned on medical evidence following a court-ordered evaluation.
- Appellant’s direct appeal proceeded with new counsel; Supreme Court of Ohio-related discipline occurred after the Pennsylvania proceedings had concluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s pro hac vice violation and suspension per se prejudiced Appellant | Allen argues per se ineffectiveness | Commonwealth argues no per se prejudice; must show actual prejudice | No per se prejudice; actual prejudice required; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for reviewing PCRA ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. duPont, 860 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Pierce test framework for ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (scope of prejudice; Cronic applicability)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 992 A.2d 152 (Pa. Super. 2010) (per se prejudice not guaranteed; need actual prejudice)
- Cole v. U.S., 162 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 1998) (per se ineffectiveness only when attorney never admitted to practice)
- U.S. v. Hoffman, 733 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1984) (no per se prejudice when suspension occurs after trial)
- Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006) (suspension after trial not per se ineffective)