Commonwealth v. Timchak
69 A.3d 765
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Timchak was convicted by guilty plea to 17 counts of sexual abuse, plus related offenses, following policĕ discovery of explicit images on his computers.
- Parker Timchak moved to PCRA after sentencing; newly represented by counsel Rutkowski; Judge Kameen presided over plea/sentencing.
- Guilty plea occurred August 26, 2010; sentencing November 17, 2010; defendant did not timely appeal direct appeal rights.
- PCRA petition argued guilty-plea counsel failed to investigate, discuss defenses, or pursue discovery; sought recusal of Judge Kameen.
- PCRA court denied relief after evidentiary hearing; appellate court reviews for supportable factual findings and legal error.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding no reasonable probability that actions by guilty plea counsel would have changed the plea or outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffectiveness for failure to investigate or discuss defenses | Timchak asserts Petorak failed to investigate or discuss defenses or discoveries. | Petorak states client wanted to plead guilty; investigation limited to plea strategy and evidence viewed. | Not entitled to relief; investigation tailored to plea; no demonstrated prejudice |
| Ineffectiveness for failure to seek recusal of Judge Kameen | Recusal should have been sought; prejudice shown by potential bias. | No demonstrated prejudice; voir dire and sentencing history show spell of plea; no biased conduct proven. | Not entitled to relief; no showing that withdrawal would have occurred |
| Ineffectiveness for not informing withdrawal rights after non-strict adherence to plea | Counsel should have advised withdrawal option given non-strict adherence by judge. | Court acted in spirit of plea; withdrawal not necessitated; counsel’s advice reasonable. | Not entitled to relief; advice reasonable under Wah |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa.Super.2012) (ineffectiveness standard applies to guilty pleas; need prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Basemore, 560 Pa. 258 (Pa. 2000) (reasonable investigation depends on information available to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa.Super.2006) (prejudice requires probability of different outcome at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa.Super.2007) (defendant bound by sworn plea statements; withdrawal claims limited)
- Commonwealth v. Druce, 577 Pa. 581 (Pa. 2004) (recusal analysis and burden on movant)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (Pa.Super.2010) (standard for reviewing PCRA denials; deference to credibility findings)