Commonwealth v. Carter
21 A.3d 680
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Hakim Carter was convicted of drug charges after a bench trial on April 17, 2007 and received a mandatory sentence of three to six years.
- Carter did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal following sentencing.
- On May 15, 2008, Carter timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, later amended by counsel to claim appellate rights reinstatement under Roe v. Flores-Ortega.
- PCRA petitions were amended on September 18, 2009 and February 12, 2010; the Commonwealth responded November 4, 2009.
- The PCRA court dismissed Carter's petition without a hearing on June 11, 2010, prompting this appeal.
- The appellate issue centers on whether trial counsel failed to consult Carter about filing a direct appeal, triggering Flores-Ortega-based relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by denying reinstatement without a hearing | Gadsden/Touw require a factual inquiry into counsel's consultation and potential prejudice. | PCRA court may deny without hearing if the record shows no consultation or prejudice (Bath rationale). | PCRA court erred; remanded for evidentiary hearing on counsel's consultation and potential appeal timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (duty to consult about an appeal when reasonable grounds or defendant interest exist)
- Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2001) (consultation standard and prejudice framework for appellate rights)
- Commonwealth v. Gadsden, 832 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2003) (remand for factual findings on counsel's consultation)
- Commonwealth v. Bath, 907 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2006) (frivolity analysis not controlling where direct review is at stake)