Court Opinion

ID: 9839074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 16:08:05.701806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:24.951959
License: Public Domain

J-S19022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 JOHN J. LUBACK, JR.                   :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1658 MDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 9, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-54-CR-0001818-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 JOHN JOSEPH LUBACK, JR.               :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1735 MDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 9, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-54-CR-0001804-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 JOHN JOSEPH LUBACK, JR.               :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 1736 MDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 9, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-54-CR-0001805-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
J-S19022-23

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED: SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

       John Joseph Luback, Jr. appeals the denial of his Post Conviction Relief

Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. He maintains that he

raised meritorious ineffectiveness claims. We affirm.

       Luback pleaded guilty on March 31, 2022, to one count each of

prohibited    offensive    weapons,      criminal   trespass,   criminal   use   of   a

communication facility, and possession of a controlled substance, and two

counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.1 The court

sentenced Luback to an aggregate term of seven and one half to 18 years’

incarceration with credit for time served. Luback filed a pro se motion to

withdraw his guilty plea that the court denied. See Order of Court, filed

6/17/22. Luback did not file a direct appeal.

       Luback filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on June 20, 2022. He

challenged his guilty plea and counsel’s effectiveness. He alleged that he “was

misrepresented[,] lied to[,] and deceived into taking a plea of guilty without

all facts of [his] case (discovery).” PCRA Petition, filed 6/20/22, at 4. The PCRA

court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley letter and requested to

withdraw as counsel.2 See Turner/Finley Letter, filed 9/8/22. The court

denied counsel’s motion and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. See Order of

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 908(a), 3503(b.1), 7512(a); 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16) and

(a)(30), respectively.

2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

                                           -2-
J-S19022-23

Court, filed 9/21/22. The court subsequently received Luback’s response to

counsel’s Turner/Finley letter. He claimed that he only agreed to plead guilty

“upon trial counsel’s promise and advise [sic] that [Luback] would go to a

‘Drug Treatment Program’[.]” [Luback’s] Motion Refuting Post-Conviction

Relief Act Counsel’s No Merit Turner/Finley Letter, docketed 9/26/22, at 2.

      The court held an evidentiary hearing on October 20, where trial counsel

and Luback testified. On November 7, 2022, Luback filed a motion to amend

his PCRA petition and asked the court to appoint new counsel. Two days later,

the court denied Luback’s PCRA petition. See Order of Court, filed 11/9/22.

The court also denied his motion to amend and for new counsel. See Order of

Court, filed 11/16/22. This timely appeal followed.

      Luback raises the following issues:

         Was defense counsel ineffective in assistance by:

         A. Failing to review the eligibility requirements for [Luback]
            to enter the county drug court program when if it had
            been done it would have been known he was not an
            eligible candidate for the county drug court program.

         B. Encouraging [Luback] to enter into a general plea of
            guilty on the premise that he may be able to enter the
            state prison drug program, when the standard guidelines
            were outside the parameters of eligibility as was his prior
            record status.

Luback’s Br. at 5 (unpaginated).

      “Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is whether the

record supports the PCRA court’s determination and whether the PCRA court’s

                                     -3-
J-S19022-23

decision is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4

(Pa.Super. 2014).

      Luback argues that trial counsel was ineffective in advising him he had

to waive his right to a preliminary hearing to be eligible for a county drug

program. Luback states that he was ineligible for the program in any case

because he was on parole at the time of the instant offenses and had pleaded

guilty to possession with intent to deliver. See Luback’s Br. at 12

(unpaginated). He contends that but for counsel’s advice, he “wanted to have

a [p]reliminary [h]earing, and would have[.]” Id. Regarding a state drug

program, Luback states, “While counsel did not guarantee the Defendant's

participation in the State Drug Program in exchange for a general plea of

guilty, the impression that it was a viable option was impressed upon the

Defendant.” Id.

      Counsel is presumed to be effective. To overcome this presumption, the

petitioner must plead and prove that: “(1) the underlying legal claim has

arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his or her action or

inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice because of counsel's

ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431, 442 (Pa. 2011).

“To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show that there is a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result

of the proceedings would have been different.” Commonwealth v.

Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). We

reject an ineffectiveness claim that fails to satisfy all three prongs of the

                                     -4-
J-S19022-23

ineffectiveness test. See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409, 419

(Pa. 2009).

      “Allegations 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.” Commonwealth v. Fears, 86

A.3d 795, 806-07 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). A petitioner may prove

prejudice by showing that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have

achieved a better outcome at trial. Id. at 807.

      Luback’s argument is underdeveloped. The only legal citations he offers

are for boilerplate statements about the right to effective counsel during the

plea process. He does not cite or apply the ineffectiveness standard applicable

to plea proceedings. In failing to present a properly developed argument,

Luback has waived his claims on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Thomas,

215 A.3d 36, 51 (Pa. 2019).

      Moreover, insofar as we understand his arguments, his claims fail.

Luback did not raise an issue with his preliminary hearing with the PCRA court,

thus it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Even if he had properly preserved this

claim, Luback has failed to show prejudice. He does not claim his plea was

involuntary or unknowing or argue that he would not have pleaded guilty. He

instead states only that he wanted to have a preliminary hearing, which would

not have foreclosed a guilty plea. Moreover, he has never claimed he would

have achieved a better outcome at a preliminary hearing, much less at trial,

                                      -5-
J-S19022-23

and he offers no explanation why either would be so. We affirm the order

denying Luback’s PCRA petition.

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/11/2023

                                  -6-