Commonwealth v. Hill
149 A.3d 362
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Marvin Hill was convicted after a bench trial (Jan. 28, 2013) of third‑degree murder and weapons offenses and sentenced to consecutive terms (15–40 years + 1½–3 years).
- Trial counsel did not file post‑sentence motions; appellate counsel (Farrell) filed a timely notice of appeal and a Rule 1925(b) statement raising four issues but pursued only a weight‑of‑the‑evidence claim on appeal.
- This Court dismissed the direct appeal as to the weight claim because it had not been preserved in the trial court, and alternatively concluded the claim lacked merit.
- Hill filed a PCRA petition seeking nunc pro tunc reinstatement of his direct appeal rights, arguing appellate counsel was per se ineffective for allowing the appeal to be dismissed. He did not allege trial counsel was ineffective in the PCRA petition.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition; Hill appealed. The Superior Court applied ineffective‑assistance standards to determine whether presumed prejudice (automatic reinstatement) or the Pierce three‑part test applied.
Issues
| Issue | Hill's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was per se ineffective such that prejudice is presumed and direct‑appeal rights should be reinstated nunc pro tunc | Farrell pursued only one of four issues and that issue was waived, so Hill was effectively denied appellate review and is entitled to presumed prejudice | Appellate counsel properly took steps to perfect an appeal (filed notice, complied with Rule 1925(b), filed a brief); Hill was not entirely denied appellate review, so presumed prejudice does not apply | Court: No presumed prejudice; appellate counsel was not per se ineffective; reinstatement is not automatic |
| Whether Hill could instead proceed under the Pierce test without alleging trial counsel ineffectiveness | Hill framed failure in appellate advocacy as ground for per se relief and did not satisfy Pierce | Commonwealth: Where appellate review was not entirely foreclosed, Hill must plead and prove Pierce (arguable merit, no reasonable basis for counsel, prejudice) | Court: Hill failed to satisfy Pierce or even plead it; PCRA dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (presumed prejudice where counsel’s lapse ensured total failure of a requested appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (failure to file a requested direct appeal warrants presumed prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003) (failure to file a requested petition for allowance of appeal warrants presumed prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement can merit presumed prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 823 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2003) (filing a brief so defective that appeal is quashed can warrant presumed prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Grosella, 902 A.2d 1290 (Pa. Super. 2006) (reinstatement is improper where appellate counsel perfected an appeal but failed to raise some claims)
- Commonwealth v. Fransen, 986 A.2d 154 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial‑level failures to preserve issues are not within narrow category that triggers presumed prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Mikell, 968 A.2d 779 (Pa. Super. 2009) (where claim was waived at trial but appellate counsel took steps to present it, presumption of prejudice does not apply)