Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238

Appellant Ousley was charged with Robbery-Serious Bodily Injury, Aggravated Assault, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Unlawful Restraint, and Retail Theft after a May 14, 2008 Dollar General robbery in Kennedy Township.
On March 25, 2009, Ousley pled guilty to Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Unlawful Restraint; firearm charge was withdrawn and a 3–6 year incarceration term was agreed, with restitution of $3,500.
Plea colloquy established the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the court advised on potential sentencing and probation, and ordered $3,500 restitution.
Appellant did not timely-file a direct appeal; a July 16, 2009 PCRA petition was filed pro se, leading to counsel’s withdrawal and a no-merit letter under Turner/Finley.
PCRA court dismissed the PCRA petition; Appellant appealed, raising claims including legality of sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel.
This appeal questions (i) whether aggravated assault merged with robbery for sentencing, (ii) whether guilty-plea/sentencing counsel failed to consult about an appeal, (iii) whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues in the no-merit letter, and (iv) whether Rule 907 notice was adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should aggravated assault merge with robbery for sentencing?	Appellant contends merger applies (illegal sentence).	Commonwealth argues no merger; offenses arose from separate acts.	Merger rejected; sentences do not merge; legality of sentencing claim meritless.
Was guilty-plea/sentencing counsel ineffective for not consulting about a direct appeal to raise legality of sentencing?	Counsel failed to consult, depriving right to appeal the legality claim.	No prejudice shown; no demonstrated request to appeal; consultation not ineffective.	Counsel not ineffective; no prejudice shown due to lack of demonstrated appeal interest.
Was PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to raise the legality of sentencing claim in the no-merit letter?	PCRA counsel ineffectively omitted the legality claim.	Issue waived; Pitts governs failure to raise such ineffectiveness on appeal.	Waived; cannot review PCRA counsel ineffectiveness due to Pitts; no relief.
Was the PCRA court's Rule 907 notice adequate?	Notice inadequately explained waiver basis and dismissal.	Notice satisfied Rule 907 requirements; stated reasons and allowed response.	Notice adequate; no reversible error.

Commonwealth v. Lomax, 8 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2010) (merger analysis for sentencing hinges on facts and elements)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (two-act analysis supports multiple convictions not merged)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 958 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no merger where offenses arise from different acts)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (duty to consult about appeal when nonfrivolous grounds exist)
Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2001) (guides consult-before-appeal duties for counsel)
Commonwealth v. Bath, 907 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2006) (duty to consult regarding appeal; prejudice required for ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (ineffective assistance per se for unexplained failure to file direct appeal)
Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preservation by raising issue in PCRA court; standard for preservation)
Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (waiver for failure to raise PCRA counsel ineffectiveness on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 950 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2008) (robbery and aggravated assault have separate elements; no mandatory merger)