Commonwealth v. Lippert
85 A.3d 1095
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Eric Lippert pled nolo contendere to indecent assault on May 3, 2012, and did not file a direct appeal.
- On December 11, 2012, Lippert filed a PCRA petition claiming his plea was unknowing because counsel told him the plea would not trigger sex-offender registration under Megan’s Law/SORNA.
- Lippert alleged trial counsel misinformed him and failed to advise regarding the December 20, 2011 SORNA enactment (effective Dec. 20, 2012), which classifies indecent assault as a registrable offense.
- The Commonwealth and PCRA court characterized registration as a collateral consequence and argued the claim was not cognizable or lacked merit; the PCRA court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.
- The court of appeals found Lippert’s witness certification defective but held the PCRA court never gave him an opportunity to amend it, so dismissal on that ground was improper; the appeals court concluded Lippert’s claim that counsel affirmatively misinformed him has arguable merit and remanded for amendment and an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand for evidentiary hearing required | Lippert: counsel misinformed him about registration; he should get a hearing to prove it | Commonwealth: claim lacks arguable merit; registration is collateral so no relief | Remand ordered; hearing required after permitting amendment to cure certification defects |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for misinformation about registration | Lippert: counsel told him plea would avoid registration; such misinformation is per se unreasonable and prejudiced him | Commonwealth: counsel need not advise on collateral consequences; counsel cannot be faulted for changes in law | Court: If counsel affirmatively misled client about consequences, claim has arguable merit—must prove all three IAC prongs at hearing |
| Whether registration is a collateral consequence undermining plea validity | Lippert: SORNA had been enacted months before plea; counsel could have known | Commonwealth: registration is collateral; lack of knowledge does not invalidate plea | Court: Registration is collateral under Leidig, but affirmative misinformation distinguishes this case from mere failure to inform |
| Whether procedural defects (certification/1925(b)) waive claims | Commonwealth: certification was deficient; 1925(b) vague; issues waived | Lippert: PCRA court never allowed amendment; 1925(b) sufficiently identified claim | Court: Declined to find waiver on 1925(b); allowed amendment for certification and rejected dismissal based on defective certification without opportunity to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza-Martinez v. United States, 372 U.S. 144 (tests for direct vs collateral consequences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (advice re: collateral consequences can be constitutionally deficient in some contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Leidig, 956 A.2d 399 (Pa. 2008) (sex-offender registration is a collateral consequence)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa.Super. 2013) (affirmative misinformation about consequences can amount to ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Gribble, 863 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2004) (counsel not ineffective for failing to predict future legal changes)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa.Super. 2013) (contract principles and negotiated no-registration terms in plea bargains)