J-S11024-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MATTHEW EDWARD WALSH :
:
Appellant : No. 961 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 1, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0001764-2015
BEFORE: OLSON, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2017
Appellant, Matthew Edward Walsh, appeals from the order entered
June 1, 2016, denying his petition for collateral relief filed under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The relevant facts underlying this appeal are as follows:
[P]ostal officers intercepted a package addressed to the
[Appellant]. Based on certain suspicious characteristics of the
package, and an alerting signal from a drug sniffing dog, a
Federal search warrant was obtained for the package. Several
pounds of marijuana were discovered inside the package. An
anticipatory search warrant was obtained for the [Appellant’s]
residence and a controlled delivery was conducted. Following
the controlled delivery, the [Appellant] was observed outside of
his residence carrying the package. He was then arrested and
the search warrant was executed. More marijuana was
discovered inside the house, as well as literature relating to
marijuana. [Appellant] made incriminating statement[s]
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S11024-17
regarding the contents of the package that was delivered. He
admitted to knowing the value of the marijuana inside and
admitted to being able to detect an odor of marijuana.
PCRA Ct. Op., 6/1/2016, at 2.
On December 16, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to
one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to
distribute (PWID) pursuant to 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(30). On February 4,
2016, Appellant was sentenced to thirty-six months of intermediate
punishment, with the first nine months on electronic monitoring, which was
deferred for up to thirty days. On February 12, 2016, Appellant received a
letter of official notice of suspension of his driving privilege as a result of his
conviction, effective March 18, 2016 for a period of six months.
Appellant did not file any post-sentence motion or otherwise appeal
the judgment of sentence. On March 7, 2016, he filed a PCRA petition
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing
in June 2016, the trial court denied relief. Appellant timely filed a notice of
appeal and court-ordered 1925(b) statement. The PCRA court issued a
responsive opinion.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s petition
for post-conviction relief where Appellant’s counsel informed
Appellant, prior to his guilty plea, that he had no chance of
obtaining a verdict of not guilty and never discussed with
Appellant the risks of trial, thereby making Appellant’s plea
unknowing and involuntary?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
-2-
J-S11024-17
Our standard of review is as follows.
In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the
PCRA court's determination ‘is supported by the record and free
of legal error.’ Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 223
(Pa. 2007). To be entitled to PCRA relief, appellant must
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his conviction or
sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors in
42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)[.]
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted).
“[A]fter a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the only cognizable
issues in a post-conviction proceeding are the validity of the plea of guilty
and the legality of the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Rounsley, 717 A.2d
537, 538 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Commonwealth v. Martinez, 539 A.2d
399 (Pa. Super. 1988)). However, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
in connection with advice rendered regarding whether to plead guilty is
cognizable under the PCRA pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). See
Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Appellant asserts ineffective assistance of plea counsel on several
grounds.
[C]ounsel is presumed effective, and [appellant] bears the
burden of proving otherwise. To prevail on an ineffectiveness
claim, appellant must establish: (1) the underlying claim has
arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel's
actions or failure to act; and (3) [appellant] suffered prejudice
as a result of counsel's error such that there is a reasonable
probability that the result of the proceeding would have been
different absent such error. Failure to prove any prong of this
test will defeat an ineffectiveness claim. [I]f a claim fails under
-3-
J-S11024-17
any necessary element of the Strickland test, the court may
proceed to that element first. When an appellant fails to
meaningfully discuss each of the three ineffectiveness prongs, he
is not entitled to relief, and we are constrained to find such
claims waived for lack of development. Further, counsel cannot
be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim.
Fears, 86 A.3d at 804 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see
also Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489, 502 (Pa. 2004) (noting
that appellate review of an allegation that counsel was ineffective in
connection with a guilty plea “dovetails with the arguable merit/prejudice
requirements”). In addition,
[a]llegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a
guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the
ineffectiveness caused appellant to enter an involuntary or
unknowing plea. In determining whether a guilty plea was
entered knowingly and intelligently, a reviewing court must
review all of the circumstances surrounding the entry of that
plea.
Fears, 86 A.3d at 806–07 (quoting Commonwealth v. Allen, 557 Pa. 135,
732 A.2d 582, 587 (1999) (internal citations omitted)).
Appellant contends that plea counsel was ineffective for three reasons:
(1) for advising Appellant that he had “no chance” of being found not guilty;
(2) for failing to inform Appellant that his driver’s license would be
suspended as a result of his plea; and (3) incorrectly explaining the
sentencing guidelines. Thus, we will proceed by addressing the PCRA court’s
findings with respect to Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel.
-4-
J-S11024-17
Here, Appellant has the burden of showing that counsel’s advice falls
outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance required by
the Sixth Amendment and to establish prejudice. Appellant contends that
the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is improper. See Appellant's
Br. at 12. This is plainly incorrect. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543 (a) (noting that
“a petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of
the following: … ineffective assistance of counsel”). To succeed in showing
prejudice in the context of a guilty plea, “the defendant must show that it is
reasonably probable that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have
pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial.” Commonwealth v.
Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citing Hill v. Lockhart,
474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 694 (1984) (“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.”); see also Missouri v. Frye, 566
U.S. 133, 148 (2012).
“Where the defendant enters his plea on the advice of counsel, the
voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel's advice ‘was within
the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.’”
Hickman, 799 A.2d at 141 (holding that counsel’s advice regarding
defendant’s sentence during plea stage was legally unsound and devoid of
any reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests) (quoting Hill, 474
U.S. at 56 (citations omitted)).
-5-
J-S11024-17
Here, Appellant contends that the advice that he would have ‘no
chance’ at winning at trial was ineffective. At the evidentiary hearing,
counsel testified that he considered the merits of seeking suppression of the
evidence but decided that the facts of the case did not give rise to a
significant probability of success. PCRA Ct. Op., 6/1/2016, at 2. In
counsel’s thirty-nine years of practice, he did not consider that Appellant
would have any chance to prevail in a trial based on the evidence and
Appellant’s own incriminating statements. See id. Counsel testified that he
did not remember advising Appellant about potential sentences or that his
license could be suspended if he pled guilty; counsel’s main concern was
that Appellant would not win at trial. See id. at 3. Thus, counsel acted to
convince Appellant to plead guilty as that is what counsel believed was in
Appellant’s best interest. See id. The final decision to plead guilty was
made by Appellant. See id.
Here, the PCRA court stated that counsel’s advice to Appellant that he
had “no chance” at trial was reasonable:
Given the facts of the case, including that [Appellant] gave
incriminating statements and additional marijuana was found
inside [Appellant’s] residence, based on [counsel’s] considerable
legal experience, he was of the opinion that [Appellant] would
have been found guilty at trial…. [Counsel] thus advised
[Appellant] that entering a plea of guilty to a single count of
PWID pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement that called for a
county intermediate punishment sentence was the best course of
action. The performance of counsel in so advising [Appellant]
did not fall below the standard of competence required by the
Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article 1,
Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. As counsel was not
-6-
J-S11024-17
ineffective in advising [Appellant] to enter a plea of guilty, it
cannot be said that counsel’s ineffectiveness caused the
[Appellant] to enter an unknowing or involuntary plea.
See PCRA Ct. Op., 6/1/2016, at 6. The PCRA court found that Appellant
failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. at 5. We agree.
The legal advice provided by counsel in this case was within the range of
competence demanded; counsel’s advice was legally sound and reasonable.
Hickman, 799 A.2d at 141. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of the PCRA
court’s discretion in rejecting his claim.
Appellant also suggests that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to
advise him that pleading guilty would result in the suspension of his driver’s
license. This claim is also without arguable merit.
A statutorily mandated suspension of operating privileges as a result of
a criminal conviction has been held to be a collateral, civil consequence of
the conviction and is not part of the criminal sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Duffey, 639 A.2d 1174, 1177 (Pa. 1994) (finding
appellee’s suspension was a collateral civil consequence pursuant to 18
Pa.C.S. § 6310.4). A collateral consequence of a guilty plea is effectively
defined as “a civil requirement over which a sentencing judge has no
control.” Commonwealth v. Abraham, 62 A.3d 343, 350 (Pa. 2012)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Leidig, 956 A.2d 399, 404 (Pa. 2008) (citing
Duffey, 639 A.2d at 1176-77)). In Abraham, our Supreme Court held that
-7-
J-S11024-17
“counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advise a defendant
regarding the collateral consequences of a plea.” Abraham, 62 A.3d at 353.
Here, Appellant’s license suspension was a statutorily mandated
collateral consequence of Appellant pleading guilty to the offense charged.
See, e.g., Duffey, 639 A.2d at 1177 (noting that the “judge does no more
than guarantee that DOT receives timely notice of the conviction requiring
license suspension as a collateral consequence.”). Upon pleading guilty to
the offense charged, Appellant’s license was suspended by pursuant to 75
Pa.C.S. § 1532(c), which states:
[The Department of Transportation (DOT)] shall suspend the
operating privilege of any person upon receiving a certified
record of the person’s conviction of any offense involving the
possession, sale, delivery, offering for sale, holding for sale or
giving away of any controlled substance under the laws of the
United States, this Commonwealth or any other state.”
75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c). Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective based on the
alleged failure to inform Appellant that his license would be suspended as a
result of his plea. Abraham, 62 A.3d at 353; Duffey, 639 A.2d at 1177.
Accordingly, the PCRA court did not err in finding Appellant’s claim was
without merit.
Appellant’s final claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to
discuss the applicable sentences in this case with him. The PCRA court
found that little evidence was presented on this claim. The court found that
Appellant failed to demonstrate “by a preponderance of the evidence that
Attorney Fives rendered ineffective assistance by failing to discuss a possible
-8-
J-S11024-17
sentence if [Appellant] had been convicted at trial.” PCRA Ct. Op. at 8. The
court also noted:
It is clear that [Appellant] was informed of the maximum
possible sentence for the charge to which he pled guilty at the
time he signed his plea colloquy. Prior to an in-court colloquy,
the record demonstrates that [Appellant] was informed by
Assistant District Attorney Mark Lope that the charge to which
[Appellant] was pleading guilty carried a standard range
sentence of restorative sanctions to nine months. [Appellant]
admitted during the colloquy that he reviewed the Plea
Agreement and discussed it with his attorney. Given these facts,
it is clear that [Appellant] did not enter an unknowing or
involuntary plea based on some misunderstanding as to the
sentence he was facing. It is also important to recognize
Attorney Fives’ conclusion that [Appellant] would not have
prevailed at trial, that he was facing two counts of PWID, and
that if he was convicted [sic] a maximum sentence in the range
of three to five years was more than a remote possibility.
Id. at 9. Moreover, the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the
evidentiary record. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order denying
relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/21/2017
-9-
Com. v. Walsh, M.
Combined Opinion