Post-Conviction Relief Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Sentencing
Commonwealth v. Suggs, PICS Case No. 17-1037 (C.P. Lycoming Jun. 28, 2017) Lovecchio, J. (8 pages).
Trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to explain the elements of crimes to defendant, because defendant admitted in a written colloquy that he understood the elements, and the court also explained the elements to defendant prior to accepting his guilty plea. Defendant's sentence was within the guidelines.
Defendant took a bicycle valued at $5,000 from the victim's residence. He was charged with theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property, both felonies of the third degree. The commonwealth subsequently amended the information to change the grading of the charge for theft by unlawful taking to a misdemeanor of the first degree. Defendant entered a guilty plea to that offense in exchange for an 18 month minimum sentence in a state correctional institution, plus restitution not to exceed $5,000. The court sentenced defendant to incarceration for a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of five years.
Defendant petitioned for post-conviction relief, asserting that the sentencing judge failed to offer him any kind of drug help, that the judge sentenced him outside the guidelines without stating why he deviated from the guidelines, and that defendant pleaded guilty without being informed of the crime's elements.
The court disagreed that defendant should have been offered a drug program. Defendant had a lengthy criminal record and he had been to state prison several times in the past. Defendant was previously treated for substance abuse at least twice. Under those facts, the court concluded that drug treatment instead of incarceration was not an appropriate sentence.
The maximum allowable sentence for a misdemeanor of the first degree was five years. The court rejected defendant's argument that the court imposed a sentence that exceeded the maximum. The court imposed, and defendant consented to, a minimum sentence of 18 months, which was within the sentencing guidelines. Although the 18-month sentence was at the top of the range for a minimum sentence, defendant would have faced a minimum sentence of 24-36 months if grading of the theft count had not been changed from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Defendant argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to explain the elements of the charges and making sure defendant understood all the factors relating to his plea agreement. In a written plea colloquy, defendant was asked several questions about his understanding of the charge and the permissible range of sentences. Defendant admitted in the written colloquy that all the elements of the crime had been explained to him, that he understood the range of sentences, and that it was his decision to plead guilty. Even if counsel did not explain the elements of the crime to him, the court found defendant was not prejudiced, because the court explained those elements to him before defendant entered his guilty plea.