If this plea took place in Pennsylvania, could they have given up their appeal rights? I think the answer is yes and no.

In Pennsylvania, there are two types of appeal: direct and PCRA (Post Conviction Relief Act). A direct appeal is what people normally think about when they want an appeal, that is to appeal a decision made by the judge in the trial or to appeal something the prosecutor did that was not fair during trial. A PCRA appeal is much different. The three main types of PCRA appeals that we see in our office are appealing some mistake that your own lawyer made, newly discovered evidence, or an illegal sentence.

I think that a defendant can give up their right to a direct appeal in consideration of a deal with the prosecutor. However, I do not believe that you can waive your PCRA rights. If the plea is illegal, if your lawyer tricked you into pleading guilty, or even if you can show that your plea was not voluntary, you may be able to file a PCRA even if you waive your appellate rights.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The relevance of this case is that the appeals court in Texas sent the case back for re-sentencing because the criminal defense attorney erred during the case, specifically the sentencing.

In Pennsylvania, we have two types of appeals: direct and pcra (post conviction relief act). In a direct appeal, you appeal the trial itself, that the judge made a mistake or didn’t give you a fair trial, that an error occurred during your case. In a pcra, you can appeal for many reasons, but if the case of the blue-eyed butcher had occurred in Pennsylvania, her claim would have been ineffective assistance of counsel, that her lawyer erred under the pcra. This distinction is important in Pennsylvania, because you cannot exercise your rights under the pcra until you have fully exhausted all of your direct appeal rights, which can take many years.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the Corley case, Mr. Corley was arrested for bank robbery and held without seeing a judge or a magistrate for thirty hours, while the FBI interrogated him about the robbery.  Ultimately, Corley confessed and was convicted.  The Supreme Court threw the conviction out this week due to the unlawful thirty hour unnecessary delay.  In doing so, the Court has breathed new life into the McNabb-Mallory rule, which in essence allows the government a six-hour delay in bringing a suspect before a magistrate.  After the six hour point, even voluntary confessions may now create suppression issues.

Score one for the rule of law!

There is no automatic right to review by the Supreme Court.  A party that desires to have their case heard by the Court must file what is called a Petition for a Writ of Certioari.  The Justices decide based on that petition, as well as any brief in opposition thereto filed by an opposing party, whether they will hear the case.  If the Justices grant the Petition for a Writ of Certioari, the parties are directed to file briefs and oral argument may be set.

There is a very strict time limit of ninety (90) days in which a party must file the Petition.  The ninety days start running from the time of the entry of final judgment in the lower court.

Additionally, if you think the judge in the Municipal Court case made a mistake as a matter of law, you can file a writ of certiorari in Common Pleas Court and ask the Common Pleas judge to review the Municipal Court ruling.