Opinion ID: 785242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Under State Law

Text: On February 1, 1988, Lewis filed his first post-conviction petition pro se pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq, 1 in the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County. Counsel was appointed and an amended petition was subsequently filed. Among the issues raised in the PCHA petition was ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's: (1) failure to move to withdraw Lewis's guilty plea when the trial court did not accept the alleged plea agreement and sentence Lewis to 5 to 10 years on each robbery count running concurrently rather than consecutively; (2) failure to appeal the trial court's denial of Lewis's motion for leave to withdraw the guilty plea despite having a meritorious argument that the guilty plea was unlawfully induced; and (3) failure to file a direct appeal from the denial of the post-trial motion and judgment of sentence. 2 Appendix, Vol. 1 at 117. Lewis's PCHA petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing. Lewis appealed the decision to the Superior Court, which addressed the sole of issue of whether Lewis was denied his right of direct appeal. The Superior Court concluded that its prior decision in Commonwealth v. Dockins, 324 Pa.Super. 305, 471 A.2d 851 (1984), which holds that trial counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal when not requested to do so, was controlling. The court affirmed the denial of Lewis's petition for post-conviction relief under the PCHA based on its conclusion that: [t]rial counsel admitted discussing the possible grounds for appeal and mentions that none of the grounds were of appellate merit. The only evidence indicating the desire to appeal was provided in the appellant's testimony at the hearing on the PCHA petition. However, in reviewing the transcript of the hearing, we find nothing in the record to support the appellant's testimony. The PCHA court resolved the issue of credibility in favor of trial counsel. That determination will not be disturbed on appeal. We therefore adhere to the holding in Dockins, ... providing that trial counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal when not requested to do so.