Commonwealth v. Maddrey
205 A.3d 323
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- In 2009 Maddrey and a co-conspirator committed four armed robberies; in October 2011 Maddrey pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea and received 13–26 years; no post-sentence motion or direct appeal was filed.
- In February 2012 Maddrey filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely move to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 (speedy-trial rule); counsel was appointed and filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and, on November 2, 2012, dismissed the petition and permitted counsel to withdraw; that dismissal order was not received by Maddrey and was missing from the certified record.
- Maddrey later pro se sought reinstatement of his appellate rights; the PCRA court reinstated appellate rights nunc pro tunc in 2017–2018 and Maddrey filed this appeal challenging the PCRA court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing.
- The PCRA court concluded Rule 600 was not violated because most delay was attributable to defense continuances/court scheduling and, viewing the record, found no genuine material factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Maddrey's Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal was timely after reinstatement of appellate rights | Reinstatement relieved him; he filed within 30 days after being informed | Order(s) sufficiently reinstated rights; appeal not untimely | Appeal not quashed; appeal timely because Maddrey filed within 30 days of the order that informed him |
| Whether PCRA court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain Rule 600 dismissal | Maddrey: evidentiary hearing required to develop factual basis for a Rule 600 claim and show prejudice from counsel’s failure | PCRA court: record shows most delay was excludable or attributable to defense; no genuine issue of material fact and claim lacks merit | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion because Maddrey failed to identify factual disputes or develop argument showing meritorious Rule 600 claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing on PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436 (Pa. Super. 2018) (elements petitioner must prove to prevail on ineffective assistance claim)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requirement of separate notices of appeal when one order resolves issues on multiple dockets)
- Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2011) (appellate reversal requires showing a genuine issue of material fact would entitle petitioner to relief)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310 (Pa. 2007) (petitioner bears burden to develop ineffectiveness claim on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 82 A.3d 419 (Pa. 2013) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claim)