Title: Com. v. Lehr
Citation: 400 Pa. Super. 514, 583 A.2d 1234
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 1990

400 Pa. Superior Ct. 514 (1990) 583 A.2d 1234 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Ronald J. LEHR, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted October 1, 1990. Filed December 27, 1990. *515 Ronald J. Lehr, pro se. William H. Platt, Dist. Atty., Allentown, for Com. Before CAVANAUGH, HUDOCK and HESTER, JJ. HUDOCK, Judge: At the conclusion of a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of homicide by vehicle while under the influence, homicide by vehicle, two counts of driving under the influence, and a related summary offense. Timely filed post-verdict motions were denied and the appellant was sentenced to three to seven years imprisonment for the homicide by vehicle charge; a consecutive sentence of ninety days to twenty-three months was imposed on the driving under the influence charges. A timely filed motion seeking reconsideration of sentence was denied. No direct appeal was taken from the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541, et seq.[1] Relief was denied after an evidentiary hearing was held on the appellant's petition. This appeal followed. Instantly, the appellant presents the following fourteen issues for our review: *517 Brief for appellant, at "D". We begin our analysis with the last issue raised by the appellant, the failure of counsel to appeal his conviction. To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must plead and prove: 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). Ordinarily, absent extraordinary circumstances, the failure to file a direct appeal from a judgment of sentence amounts to waiver of any claim which could have been raised in such an appeal, thereby precluding collateral relief. Now, in an attempt to circumvent the consequences of his failure to appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed upon him, the appellant alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to file and pursue a direct appeal. To successfully avoid a finding of waiver, the appellant "must prove that he requested an appeal and that counsel disregarded the request." Commonwealth v. Hudson, 336 Pa.Super. 174, 178, 485 A.2d 487, 489 (1984). At the evidentiary hearing, the appellant testified that following the sentencing proceeding stemming from his motion for reconsideration, he specifically requested counsel to file an appeal. This was contradicted by sentencing counsel who testified that after sentence was imposed, he inquired of the appellant whether or not he wanted to *518 appeal.[2] The appellant replied in the negative. Despite this, sentencing counsel filed a motion seeking reconsideration of sentence which was ultimately denied without a hearing. Subsequent to sentencing, counsel received two letters from the appellant; neither letter requested an appeal. The PCRA court, apparently crediting counsel's testimony, concluded that "[t]here is simply no basis to fault [counsel]." (PCRA Court opinion, at 10.) Matters of credibility are vested in the sound discretion of the trier of fact, in this case the PCRA court. We will not attempt to re-evaluate such matters on appeal. Thus, because the appellant has failed in meeting his burden of showing that he requested an appeal and that counsel disregarded the request, the issues presented instantly, with the exception of the first issue, are deemed waived. The first issue raised by the appellant concerns the propriety of his sentence, which we view as concerning the legality of the sentence. The legality of a sentence is a matter which cannot be waived. Indeed, if a person pleads and proves that their sentence resulted from the imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum, they are eligible for relief under the terms of the PCRA. 42 Pa.C. S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vii). In Commonwealth v. Voshall, 387 Pa.Super. 47, 563 A.2d 936 (1989), allocatur granted, 525 Pa. 599, 575 A.2d 565 (1990), this Court found that the offense of driving under the influence merged with the crime of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence. In light of this decision, we find the appellant is eligible for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is necessary to vacate only the judgment of sentence imposed for driving under the influence (ninety days to twenty-three months). The order is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The judgment of sentence imposed for driving under the influence only is vacated. Jurisdiction is relinquished. [1] The appellant's trial counsel was granted leave to withdraw after post-verdict motions were filed, but prior to the court en banc denying the same. Sentencing counsel was replaced by PCRA counsel. The appellant appears before this Court pro se. [2] Counsel also testified that prior to the sentencing proceeding, he and the appellant discussed the applicable mandatory sentence and the avenues of appeal that would be available following imposition of sentence.