Commonwealth v. Oliver
128 A.3d 1275
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant Anthony Oliver pled guilty to theft by deception (bad check) on Feb 21, 2012 and was sentenced to 2–5 years; he did not file a direct appeal.
- On Feb 14, 2013 Oliver filed a "Motion Challenging Validity of Plea," which the PCRA court construed as a PCRA petition and appointed counsel (Carluccio) who filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and ultimately denied the petition on Feb 7, 2014; appellate counsel later withdrew and Oliver appealed pro se.
- Oliver asserted (1) Vienna Convention / U.S.–UK bilateral treaty consular‑notification violations, (2) Commonwealth breach of plea via DOC parole conditions (GED, program participation), (3) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to investigate and to advise re: deportation), and (4) ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel for filing the no‑merit letter.
- The PCRA court and this Court found most claims waived for procedural defaults or meritless; the court also considered whether treaty claims are cognizable under the PCRA and concluded they are when tied to a claim that a plea was unlawfully induced.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of relief, rejecting the plea‑breach and consular claims on waiver/merits and rejecting ineffective assistance claims because underlying claims lacked arguable merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oliver) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Motion was properly construed as a PCRA petition | Motion raised treaty violations (Vienna Convention and U.S.–UK Bilateral Agreement) and agency misconduct not cognizable under PCRA | PCRA can reach claims that a guilty plea was unlawfully induced, including treaty/constitutional violations; Oliver sought plea withdrawal | Motion was properly treated as PCRA; treaty‑based plea claim is cognizable under PCRA |
| Whether Commonwealth breached plea by DOC parole conditions (GED/programs) | DOC imposed additional sentencing conditions (mandatory GED, pressure to join program) that breached plea terms | Parole and DOC program requirements are collateral/administrative, not bargained‑for plea terms; no right to parole; claim was meritless | Claim lacked merit; no breach of plea established |
| Whether failure to provide consular notification under Vienna Convention/Bilateral Agreement requires relief | MCPD failed to notify British consulate; relief (e.g., withdraw plea) warranted | Treaty rights are subject to procedural rules; Oliver waived the claim by not raising it at trial or on direct appeal | Claim waived for failure to raise earlier; in any event procedural rules apply to treaty claims |
| Whether counsel (trial, appellate, PCRA) were ineffective | Trial/appellate counsel failed to investigate and failed to advise re: deportation; PCRA counsel improperly filed no‑merit letter | Trial/appellate claim waived (not raised below); PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter reasonable because underlying claims lacked arguable merit | Trial/appellate claims waived; PCRA counsel not ineffective because underlying claims lacked arguable merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Quaranibal, 763 A.2d 941 (Pa. Super. 2000) (addressing Vienna Convention consular‑notification claim under PCRA and waiver)
- Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1998) (treaties do not override forum procedural rules; implementation follows forum procedures)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (deportation is a collateral consequence requiring counsel advice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)