HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002465-2010
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
DAVID MANNING STODGHILL : CP-21-CR-2465-2010
IN RE: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ACT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Masland, J., December 28, 2012:--
n May 21, 2012, David Manning Stodghill filed a pro se Petition for relief
O
pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 et. seq.
Counsel was appointed to represent him on May 29, 2012 and provided an
additional sixty days to file an amended petition. Instead, counsel for Petitioner
requested a hearing on the Petition, which, following one continuance, was
ultimately held on December 10, 2012. At the hearing, the court received
testimony from Stodghill, the two attorneys appointed to represent him on his
prior criminal dockets and the prosecuting attorney. Although the likelihood of an
appeal to the Superior Court is high, we offer this abbreviated assessment of
Stodghill’s claims in the hopes that he will see there is no merit to his Petition.
First, let there be no mistake that we find little credibility in the testimony
of Stodghill. However, even if the court were inclined to believe his claim that, in
essence, the Assistant District Attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct by
using two stale misdemeanor charges to force Stodghill to plead to a felony
charge; and if we believed that defense counsel were ineffective in failing to seek
dismissal of the misdemeanor and buckling under to such leverage, it is clear to
the court that Stodghill was in no way prejudiced. In short, Stodghill not only
CP-21-CR-2113-1999
received the benefit of the bargain in his agreement to a four to eight year
sentence, but he also received a very good deal in the process. In working out
the terms of Stodghill’s plea, counsel was far from ineffective. Counsels’ acts or
alleged omissions in no way undermined the truth-determining process.
Moreover, Stodghill has failed to establish that “but for the errors and omissions
of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings
would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326, 333 (Pa.
1999). Accordingly, we issue the following order:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of December, 2012, upon consideration of
Petitioner’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and after hearing and argument
DENIED.
thereon, the Petition is
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Matthew Smith, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
For Petitioner
:sal
-2-
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
DAVID MANNING STODGHILL : CP-21-CR-2465-2010
IN RE: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ACT
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of December, 2012, upon consideration of
Petitioner’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and after hearing and argument
DENIED.
thereon, the Petition is
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Matthew Smith, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
For Petitioner
:sal