Commonwealth v. Patterson
143 A.3d 394
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Patterson entered an open guilty plea on June 10, 2013 to possession with intent to deliver marijuana. Plea colloquy referenced a five-year statutory mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. §7508(a)(iii).
- One week later (June 17, 2013) the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alleyne v. United States, holding that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Commonwealth filed a notice seeking the mandatory minimum, but at sentencing (Sept. 6, 2013) the parties negotiated a 4–8 year term with no fine; the court imposed that agreed sentence.
- Patterson did not file a direct appeal or post-sentence motions. He filed a pro se PCRA petition in Sept. 2014; counsel amended to assert counsel ineffectiveness for failing to advise him about Alleyne and its impact.
- PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding counsel cannot be faulted for failing to predict Alleyne since the guilty plea occurred before Alleyne.
- Patterson appealed; the Superior Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel failed to advise him about Alleyne and whether that failure prejudiced his plea or acceptance of the negotiated sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was involuntary because threat of a mandatory minimum (later invalidated by Alleyne) induced the June plea | Plea was induced by prospect of a 5-year mandatory minimum and thus involuntary | Counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to predict Alleyne (plea predated Alleyne) | Court rejected that the claim was limited to pre-Alleyne plea; claim can encompass post-Alleyne sentencing negotiations and was not barred outright |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Patterson about Alleyne’s applicability at sentencing/negotiations, and whether that prejudice warrants relief | Counsel failed to advise of Alleyne, which affected Patterson’s decision to accept 4–8 years and possibly to maintain the plea; he would have withdrawn or rejected the deal | No reasonable basis to find counsel ineffective because the plea occurred before Alleyne and counsel cannot be faulted for not anticipating change in law | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if counsel failed to advise, and if so whether Patterson was prejudiced such that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing or withdrawal of plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez-Negron, 123 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014) (vacating sentence and plea where unconstitutional mandatory minimum influenced plea/negotiation)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2012) (counsel not ineffective for failing to predict change in law)
- Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review and ineffective assistance framework)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (prejudice standard for plea-based ineffective assistance claims)