Commonwealth v. Hernandez
79 A.3d 649
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Rafael Hernandez pleaded guilty to first-degree murder on May 4, 1999, receiving life without parole in a negotiated plea that spared him the death penalty and dismissed related charges.
- Post-sentence counseled motions to withdraw the plea were denied; no timely direct appeal was filed, but later proceedings restored appellate rights nunc pro tunc and the plea was upheld on direct review.
- Hernandez filed multiple untimely PCRA petitions; the instant petition was filed April 23, 2012, more than a decade after his judgment of sentence became final (June 4, 1999).
- Hernandez invoked the PCRA’s newly-recognized-right exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)), arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye created retroactive constitutional rights entitling him to relief despite untimeliness.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely for lack of jurisdiction; the Superior Court affirmed, finding Lafler and Frye inapplicable or not new rights that would excuse the time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing Hernandez’s PCRA petition as untimely | Lafler and Frye announced new constitutional rights that Hernandez timely invoked within 60 days, excusing the one-year PCRA limit | Hernandez’s claims are untimely; Lafler and Frye do not create a new, retroactive constitutional right applicable here | Denied. Petition untimely; exceptions not met and court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for giving advice that led to an unknowing, involuntary plea | Counsel’s advice induced Hernandez to accept the plea; Lafler/Frye entitle him to relief | Counsel fully communicated plea offers; Hernandez admitted being informed and accepted a negotiated plea | Not reached on merits due to lack of jurisdiction; factual posture incompatible with Lafler/Frye exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (ineffective assistance can be prejudicial where counsel’s advice causes rejection of a plea offer and leads to a harsher outcome)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (counsel has duty to communicate formal plea offers; failure to do so can constitute ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (Strickland analysis applies to challenges to guilty pleas)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishes Lafler where defendant pled guilty rather than rejecting a plea and proceeding to trial)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (concludes Lafler and Frye did not announce a new constitutional right but applied existing Sixth Amendment principles)