Commonwealth v. Presley
193 A.3d 436
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Lynn Presley pleaded guilty in two Philadelphia cases and was sentenced in 2000 to 11.5–23 months plus five years reporting probation, then granted immediate parole.
- Probation was revoked in 2001 for technical violations; same jail term was reimposed. Later criminal conduct (drug convictions and Montgomery County theft charges) led to a second VOP in 2005, where the court initially imposed 12–24 years plus a fine.
- The 2005 sentence was vacated on post-sentence motion; at a December 6, 2006 reconsideration hearing the court reimposed 12–24 years and the Commonwealth nolle prossed the drug convictions. Presley did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- Presley filed a PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of appeal rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court later reinstated direct-appeal rights and Presley pursued a nunc pro tunc direct appeal claiming discretionary sentencing error, which this Court affirmed as waived but left open PCRA ineffective-assistance claims.
- Presley then filed the PCRA petition now at issue alleging VOP counsel was ineffective for failing to file post-sentence motion and preserve objections (including failure to state reasons and excessiveness); the PCRA court dismissed without a hearing and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late filing of Rule 1925(b) statement waived issues | Presley argued counsel’s late filing should not bar review | Commonwealth/PCRA court urged waiver but court treated PCRA counsel’s failure as per se ineffective | Court held PCRA appeal is a "criminal case" for Pa.R.A.P.1925(c)(3); PCRA counsel’s late filing was per se ineffective and issues considered on merits |
| Whether PCRA court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | Presley argued an evidentiary hearing was needed to develop ineffective-assistance claims | Commonwealth argued the petition failed to plead prejudice and no hearing required | Court affirmed dismissal without a hearing because Presley failed to plead requisite prejudice under ineffective-assistance test |
| Whether VOP counsel was ineffective for not objecting to court’s failure to state reasons (Pa.R.Crim.P.708(D)(2)) | Presley argued counsel should have objected; lack of stated reasons rendered sentence unpreserved | Commonwealth argued even with objection, record shows no reasonable likelihood sentence would have been reduced | Court applied Commonwealth v. Reaves: Presley failed to show objection would likely have produced a reduced sentence; claim denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing post-sentence motion to preserve excessiveness claim | Presley argued failure to file forfeited appellate review of discretionary sentencing claim | Commonwealth argued sentence was within VOP court discretion and Presley was not prejudiced | Court held Presley could not show reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome at VOP or on appeal; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (sets standard for prejudice when counsel fails to object to VOP court’s failure to state reasons; focus is whether objection would have produced a reduced sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2003) (vacated VOP sentence where sentencing court failed to state reasons; a direct-appeal context)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (discusses applicability of Rule 1925 remand procedure to PCRA counsel failures)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (explains sentencing discretion on probation revocation is broader and guidelines do not apply)