Commonwealth v. Grayson
212 A.3d 1047
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Rasheen Grayson filed a timely first PCRA petition alleging trial counsel gave incorrect advice to reject a pretrial plea of 2½–5 years by telling him a likely sentence would be 3–6 years, and that but for that advice he would have accepted the plea and received a lesser sentence than the 6–12 years he ultimately got.
- PCRA counsel amended the petition and requested an evidentiary hearing but did not include Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15)/42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1) witness certifications; Grayson did provide an unsworn § 4904 verification signed by him.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss for failure to include required witness certifications; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- Grayson appealed, arguing: (1) the PCRA court erred in denying a hearing despite his sworn § 4904 verification and uncontroverted factual averments about counsel’s plea advice; and (2) the trial court failed to award credit for time served between arrest and sentencing.
- The Superior Court held that the statute does not require a petitioner to include a certification for his own testimony, found the record did not resolve factual disputes about counsel’s advice, affirmed denial as to sentencing-credit claim (because the sentencing order granted credit), vacated in part, and remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing limited to whether counsel ineffectively advised Grayson to reject the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner must include a § 9545/Rule 902(A)(15) witness certification from himself to obtain an evidentiary hearing | Grayson: his § 4904 verification and petition substantively presented his testimony; no separate Rule 902 certification was required for the petitioner | Commonwealth: petitioner failed to include required witness certifications and thus no hearing | Held: statute requires certifications for "each intended witness" but does not require the petitioner to submit a separate certification of his own testimony; petitioner’s own verification suffices to raise issues for a hearing |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by summarily dismissing without a hearing where counsel allegedly misadvised Grayson about plea sentencing ranges, causing rejection of a plea offer | Grayson: his uncontradicted averments (supported by his verification) raised genuine issues of fact about counsel’s advice and prejudice, warranting a hearing | Commonwealth: factual averments insufficient and dismissal proper due to lack of Rule 902 certifications | Held: factual dispute exists about what counsel advised and whether Grayson would have accepted the plea; remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing where trial counsel may testify |
| Whether the trial court failed to give credit for time served from arrest to sentencing | Grayson: he did not receive credit and seeks a hearing to determine why | Commonwealth: sentencing record controls; PCRA court noted record language | Held: sentencing order awarded credit for time served; claim unsupported by record and PCRA court’s dismissal on this issue affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 767 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2001) (interpreting § 9545 witness-certification requirements and legislative history; petitioner need not submit sworn affidavits)
- Commonwealth v. Malone, 823 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2003) (criticizing PCRA counsel’s failure to provide witness certifications and remanding for amended petition/hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel analysis under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 819 A.2d 81 (Pa. Super. 2003) (court may not summarily dismiss when petition’s factual allegations, if proven, would entitle petitioner to relief)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 684 A.2d 1037 (Pa. 1996) (PCRA courts should hold evidentiary hearings when factual issues require resolution)
- Commonwealth v. Grove, 170 A.3d 1127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (statutory construction principles for interpreting PCRA and related rules)
- Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392 (Pa. Super. 2014) (challenge to failure to award credit for time served is a cognizable PCRA due process claim when supported by the record)
- Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2014) (petitioner may prepare witness certifications; court addressed scope of who may sign certifications)