Commonwealth v. Root
179 A.3d 511
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Appellant Brian Keith Root pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea that the Commonwealth and defense described on the record as including a specific agreed aggregate sentence of 2–4 years’ imprisonment followed by 12 years’ probation.
- At the plea colloquy the trial court said it would consider the recommendation but was not bound and told Root that a sentence greater than agreed upon would not permit withdrawal of the plea. The court accepted the plea.
- At sentencing the court imposed 2–14 years’ imprisonment (same aggregate supervision but longer maximums) and denied post‑sentence relief; Root did not file a direct appeal.
- Root filed a timely PCRA petition claiming the negotiated plea was not honored and that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) file post‑sentence litigation to enforce the agreement or (b) advise him about withdrawing the plea or filing an appeal.
- The PCRA court dismissed, finding Parsons inapplicable because the trial court never fully approved the plea and crediting counsel’s testimony that Root never asked for an appeal after the post‑sentence motion was denied.
- The Superior Court reversed: Parsons applies where a plea on the record includes a specific sentencing term; the trial court erred by accepting the plea but denying withdrawal as an option when it imposed a harsher sentence; counsel’s post‑sentence advice was unreasonable and Root is entitled to reinstatement of post‑sentence rights.
Issues
| Issue | Root's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parsons applies where parties placed a specific sentence on the record but the trial court warned it was not bound and later imposed a harsher sentence | Parsons controls; when parties agree to a specific sentence on the record the court and parties are bound or the defendant must be allowed to withdraw the plea | PCRA court: plea was not fully approved by the trial court here, so Parsons does not apply | Parsons applies; trial court erred by accepting plea terms as a negotiated sentence but denying withdrawal as an option when imposing a harsher sentence |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Root about post‑sentence remedies (motion to enforce, withdraw plea, or appeal) | Counsel failed to advise Root of available remedies and misinformed him that nothing could be done; this prejudiced Root | Counsel reasonably believed an appeal would be futile and that Root likely would be paroled before an appeal decision | Counsel’s post‑sentence performance lacked a reasonable basis and Root was prejudiced; PCRA relief is warranted to reinstate post‑sentence rights |
| Appropriate remedy on PCRA remand | Enforce agreed sentence or allow plea withdrawal and/or new post‑sentence proceedings | Commonwealth urged remand for sentencing consistent with plea (as in Parsons) | Court remanded to reinstate post‑sentence rights and direct the PCRA court to set a deadline to file post‑sentence motions (trial court retains sentencing discretion subject to defendant’s right to withdraw plea) |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was needed on counsel’s effectiveness | Hearing necessary to develop facts about counsel’s advice and whether Root requested an appeal | PCRA court limited hearing but found no request for appeal; initially dismissed without hearing | Superior Court found the record supported relief and ordered further proceedings; reinstatement of post‑sentence rights ordered so PCRA court can set deadlines and decide counsel appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Parsons, 969 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (plea including a specific sentence entered on the record and accepted by the court must be honored or defendant must be allowed to withdraw the plea)
- Commonwealth v. Tann, 79 A.3d 1130 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court may impose a harsher sentence than agreed but defendant may withdraw plea if deprived of the bargain)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 154 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc) (counsel must provide defendant with relevant information for decision to appeal; counsel’s belief that appeal is futile is not determinative)
- Commonwealth v. Timchak, 69 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2013) (counsel’s decision not to pursue post‑sentence remedies can be reasonable where plea terms left sentencing discretion and result was favorable)