 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Rounsley5/11/1998
This is an appeal from an Order denying appellant Timothy James Rounsley's petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9541, et seq. Mr. Rounsley challenges whether the evidence presented to support his conviction for homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence was sufficient when he was not convicted of driving under the influence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows. On March 22, 1996, Mr. Rounsley was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which two persons were killed and one person was seriously injured. As a result of this accident, Mr. Rounsley was charged with the following: two counts of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence ; two counts of homicide by vehicle; three counts of accidents involving death or personal injury ; three counts of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance; three counts of reckless driving; one count of driving at safe speed; one count of driving on roadways laned for traffic; one count of careless driving; and two counts of involuntary manslaughter. On June 10, 1996, following a full written and oral colloquy, Mr. Rounsley entered a general plea of guilty to two counts of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence. The Commonwealth agreed not to prosecute the remaining charges. Mr. Rounsley was then sentenced to undergo a term of incarceration of 3-½ to 7 years on each count to run consecutively. No post-sentence motions or direct appeals were filed.
On January 15, 1997, Mr. Rounsley filed a petition for collateral relief pursuant to the PCRA. Following the appointment of counsel and the filing of an amended petition, an evidentiary hearing was held on June 11, 1997. At the evidentiary hearing, counsel for Mr. Rounsley argued that the only issue before the Court was whether under 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3735 and the holding in Commonwealth v. Caine, 683 A.2d 890 (Pa. Super. 1996), Mr. Rounsley's guilty plea should be recognized as invalid and should be held unconstitutional. By Order and Opinion dated June 16, 1997, the trial court denied Mr. Rounsley's amended petition. This appeal followed.
When examining a post-conviction court's grant or denial of relief, this Court's review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record, and its order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 690 A.2d 250 (Pa. Super. 1997). The findings of the PCRA court will not be disturbed unless they lack support from the record. Commonwealth v. McClucas, 548 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 1988).
To be eligible for relief, an appellant must first establish that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects found in 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). The appellant must also establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). An issue is considered to be previously litigated for the purpose of the PCRA if the "highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue." 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9544(a). An issue is deemed waived "if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state post-conviction proceeding." 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9544(b). Finally, the appellant must demonstrate that failure to litigate the issue prior to trial, during trial, or on direct appeal could not have resulted from any "rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel." 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9543(a)(4). We also note
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|