Commonwealth v. Ford
44 A.3d 1190
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Ford was convicted of robbery after a bench trial and sentenced to 25 to 50 years under the three-strikes scheme.
- During waiver colloquy, the Commonwealth stated the defendant faced a maximum sentence of 20 years, which the record shows was incorrect.
- Trial counsel knew of a possible 25-year minimum but did not object to the misstatement at the colloquy.
- Ford pursued post-conviction relief (PCRA); the PCRA court reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc and appointed counsel.
- On direct appeal, counsel filed Anders/McClendon brief; the panel deemed the appeal frivolous with one dissent suggesting a viable first-degree robbery/three-strikes issue.
- Ford filed a nunc pro tunc PCRA appeal alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel’s failure to object to the misstatement and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to misstatement of max sentence | Ford argues trial counsel’s failure to object allowed an involuntary jury waiver | Commonwealth contends defendant knew of the 25-year minimum and thus relied on no incorrect fact | denied; misstatement did not affect waiver given knowledge of 25-year minimum |
| Whether initial PCRA counsel was ineffective for not challenging appellate counsel's Anders brief | Ford contends appellate counsel’s Anders brief concealed a viable challenge | Commonwealth argues issues raised on appeal were appropriately deemed frivolous | denied; claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for the first time on appeal absent a constitutional right to post-conviction counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa.Super. 2010) (deference to PCRA court; ineffective-assistance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Houck, 948 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2008) (jury-waiver voluntariness; reliance on sentence range)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (addressing PCRA counsel effectiveness on appeal in capital cases, split decision)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (no-merit letter and challenge to PCRA counsel raised on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (hybrid representation; PCRA counsel ineffectiveness not raised below)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (limits on raising PCRA counsel ineffectiveness on discretionary review)