Commonwealth v. Jarosz
152 A.3d 344
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On July 3, 2008 Jarosz left his lane, struck a westbound vehicle and fled the scene; the other driver later died. Jarosz had no valid license and had been suspended for DUI-related reasons since 2005.
- Jarosz initially pleaded guilty, later withdrew the plea, proceeded to jury trial, and was convicted (including Homicide by Vehicle, AIDPI–NL, and DWS–DUI). He received an aggregate 4–15 year sentence.
- This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on direct appeal; Jarosz did not seek further review.
- Jarosz filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, counsel was appointed, an evidentiary PCRA hearing was held, and the PCRA court denied relief.
- On appeal from the PCRA denial Jarosz raised six claims, principally alleging trial/appellate counsel ineffectiveness (failure to seek merger of sentences, improper charging subsection for suspension, failure to present evidence of a brain injury, violation of a prior plea bargain, and denial of expert appointment).
Issues
| Issue | Jarosz's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Homicide by Vehicle merges with AIDPI–NL for sentencing | AIDPI–NL is a lesser-included offense of Homicide by Vehicle and should merge | Elements differ: Homicide by Vehicle requires that the vehicular-code violation be the cause of death; AIDPI–NL does not — driving without a license was not the cause of death here | No merger; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise it |
| Whether AIDPI–NL merges with DWS–DUI | AIDPI–NL and DWS–DUI should merge for sentencing | Statutes have distinct elements; DWS–DUI requires a DUI-related suspension element not in AIDPI–NL | No merger; counsel not ineffective (precedent rejects merger) |
| Whether Jarosz was improperly charged under §1543(b) rather than §1543(a) (scope of suspension offense) | Jarosz contends the DUI suspension had expired and he was not within §1543(b) coverage | He remained without restored privileges between suspensions; §1543(b)(2) applies until restoration of privilege | Charge under §1543(b) proper; counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless claim |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain/present medical records / expert to show concussion impaired mens rea for failure to stop/render aid and abandoning vehicle | Additional medical evidence or expert would show Jarosz wandered in a dazed state and lacked intent to flee | Trial counsel elicited concussion diagnosis at trial; the Commonwealth did not dispute it; eyewitness testimony supports intentional flight; additional evidence would be cumulative and not prejudicial | No relief — counsel not ineffective and PCRA court did not abuse discretion in denying medical expert |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue sentence violated a plea bargain in another case | Jarosz claims his sentence unlawfully extended a prior plea agreement (concurrent sentence promise) | Jarosz withdrew/abrogated the plea in this case, nullifying the bargain; upon withdrawal the Commonwealth was no longer bound | Claim without merit; counsel not ineffective |
| Whether PCRA court abused discretion by denying appointment of crash reconstruction expert | Jarosz argues an independent reconstructionist could show no criminal liability | Argument is speculative; trial counsel already challenged the Commonwealth’s expert and Jarosz offers no developed factual showing of prejudice | Denial not an abuse of discretion; request properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Fears v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standards for appellate review of PCRA denials)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (scope of review limited to PCRA court findings and record)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (presumption of effective counsel absent proof otherwise)
- Fulton v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Koehler v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (no ineffectiveness when underlying claim lacks arguable merit)
- Nero v. Commonwealth, 58 A.3d 802 (Pa. Super. 2012) (merger analysis comparing statutory elements)
- Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (statutory interpretation of merger statute)
- Hurst v. Commonwealth, 889 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. 2005) (scienter requirement for AIDPI–NL)
- Raven v. Commonwealth, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (AIDPI–NL and DWS–DUI do not merge)
- Ward v. Commonwealth, 425 A.2d 401 (Pa. 1981) (withdrawing plea abrogates plea bargain)
- Albrecht v. Commonwealth, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (appointment of experts in PCRA matters is discretionary; not required where testimony would be cumulative)
- Reid v. Commonwealth, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (review of PCRA court’s discretion to appoint experts)
- Fuehan v. Commonwealth, 557 A.2d 1093 (Pa. Super. 1989) (prosecutorial duty to honor plea promises)
- Parsons v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2009) (parties and court must abide by plea terms once accepted)
- White v. Commonwealth, 787 A.2d 1088 (Pa. Super. 2001) (value of plea agreements in administration of justice)
- Daniels v. Commonwealth, 963 A.2d 409 (Pa. 2009) (failure to satisfy any prong of ineffectiveness test requires rejection of claim)