Com. v. Jadczak, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S14018-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JOSEPH W. JADCZAK, JR., Appellant No. 1773 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order entered May 29, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002475-2009 BEFORE: LAZARUS, OLSON AND FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 14, 2013 Appellant, Joseph W. Jadczak, Jr., appeals from an order entered on May 29, 2012 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 9541-9546. We affirm. The PCRA court aptly summarized the relevant facts and procedural history in this matter as follows: On July 6, 2009, Appellant entered an [o]pen [g]uilty [p]lea to the charges of homicide by vehicle and permitting the operation of a vehicle with unsafe equipment. In pleading guilty, Appellant admitted that he was the owner of Pratt s Auto Service, located in Philadelphia. He was the station s only mechanic licensed to inspect tractor-trailers. On December 2, 2008, Appellant sold two inspection stickers to a trucking company without conducting an inspection of the tractor[-]trailers for which he issued stickers. Two months later, one of the tractor[-]trailers, that should have been inspected, experienced mechanical problems, resulting in a fatal accident. On April 26, 2010, *Former Justice assigned to the Superior Court. J-S14018-13 Appellant was sentenced to three to twenty-three months imprisonment, and an aggregate fine of $1,500[.00] and costs. On May 7, 2010, Appellant filed a Petition for Withdrawal of Guilty Plea, alleging the ineffectiveness of guilty plea counsel, John I. McMahon, Esquire. On July 12, 2010, a hearing was held on the Petition. On that same date, an order was issued denying the Petition. A direct appeal was filed on July 26, 2010. Appellant s judgment of sentence was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on April 7, 2011.[] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant s Petition for Allowance of Appeal on October 31, 2011. On January 17, 2012, Appellant filed a counseled PCRA petition. An evidentiary hearing was held on May 25, 2012. At the hearing, Appellant testified on his own behalf. In significant part, Appellant testified that he only met with Mr. McMahan three or four times prior to entering his guilty plea. Appellant stated that during his discussions and meetings with Mr. McMahon he never saw all of the charges that he was arrested for, and that he never received any discovery from Mr. McMahon despite his numerous requests to do so. Appellant recalled that in his conversations about going to trial and pleading not guilty, Mr. McMahon was very concerned with all of the pre-trial publicity and that because of all of the publicity Mr. McMahon believed Appellant s chances at trial to be minimal. In fact, it was Appellant s testimony that Mr. McMahon advised against going to trial because of all of the pre-trial publicity. Appellant also testified that he did not think he was criminally liable. Appellant told th[e PCRA c]ourt that Mr. McMahon did not review all of the charges with him, nor did he review the elements of those charges with him. Appellant stated that there were witnesses that he believed that could be helpful at trial as character witnesses and even an eyewitness to the accident. According to Appellant s testimony, on the day that he entered his guilty plea, he told Mr. McMahon that he did not believe he was guilty. Appellant also testified that Mr. McMahon told him to just say yes and no when he told him to, and he would make this thing go away. Although Appellant felt uncomfortable -2- J-S14018-13 signing the colloquy he did so anyway based upon Mr. McMahon s advice. Finally, at the PCRA hearing, Appellant told th[e PCRA c]ourt that he was innocent. The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Mr. McMahon. The credible testimony of Mr. McMahon revealed that he is a seasoned criminal attorney with 22 years of criminal defense experience. Mr. McMahon was contacted by Appellant shortly after his arrest. Mr. McMahon immediately met with Appellant at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility on March 17, 2009, where he was being held on $250,000[.00] bail. Mr. McMahon testified that this first meeting was extremely crucial because that meeting was the basis of how this case was handled. Mr. McMahon knew at that meeting that Appellant was facing a homicide by vehicle charge in a horrific case in which a married man of three children died as a result of the accident. He reviewed the criminal complaint with Appellant and the 21-page affidavit of probable cause. Mr. McMahon unequivocally testified that at no time did Appellant have any disputes with the facts as set forth in the affidavit of probable cause and he did not maintain that he was innocent, and that Appellant s proclamation in his PCRA petition that he was innocent is blatantly false. The most memorable part of the initial meeting to Mr. McMahon was how desperate Appellant was to get out of jail, and how the conversation between them turned on being able to get Appellant s bail lowered. Per Appellant s request, Mr. McMahon discussed with the First Assistant District Attorney the possibility of lowering the bail in return for Appellant s cooperation. Mr. McMahon was successful in doing so. On March 19, 2009 a proffer agreement was signed by Appellant. At that proffer meeting it was clearly discussed that part of Appellant s cooperation would require him to plead guilty. Appellant was fully aware as of that date, that any cooperation benefit he would receive was premised on a guilty plea. After Appellant signed the proffer agreement, it was arranged for him to be interviewed by the investigating detective the following day. On March 20, 2009, Appellant did in fact provide detectives with a 16-page statement with Mr. McMahon present. At that meeting and in his statement, Appellant clearly admitted his criminal conduct, when he admitted that in return for a cash -3- J-S14018-13 payment, he would put inspection stickers, not only on the vehicle involved in the fatal accident, but also on many other vehicles, when he had in fact not inspected the vehicles. Based on Appellant s cooperation, his bail was reduced from $250,000[.00] to $50,000[.00]. Appellant was able to post this bail and was able to get out of jail, until he was sentenced, many months later. Mr. McMahon testified at the PCRA hearing[] that Appellant understood what was taking place at the March 20, 2009 meeting[] and that he was right there with Appellant to answer any questions that he had along the way. In fact, Mr. McMahon recalled and emphasized that he and Appellant took breaks during the statement to answer Appellant s questions. Mr. McMahon also recalled that at times Appellant was not truthful with the detective, until he was confronted with some of the Commonwealth s evidence, such as the inspection and log books. Eventually the lengthy statement was completed. At the PCRA hearing, Mr. McMahon rejected Appellant s assertion that he was concerned about pre-trial publicity and that he told Appellant he could make this go away. Mr. McMahon emphatically rejected Appellant s testimony in that regard. Rather, Mr. McMahon testified that although there was some pre-trial publicity, as a defense attorney he was more concerned with the overwhelming evidence that the Commonwealth had against Appellant. For instance, Mr. McMahon knew that Appellant would not be able to mount a defense of mistake or accident, in that the Commonwealth had the inspection books which documented a course of conduct that Appellant regularly sold inspection stickers for vehicles he did not actually inspect, including the vehicle involved in the fatal accident. Additionally, the Commonwealth had evidence that the tractor[-]trailer s entire brake system failed. Further, the affidavit of probable cause had an expert opinion and a damaging statement from one of Appellant s employees. Mr. McMahon believed this to be very strong evidence and under his analysis, Appellant was the direct cause of the fatal accident. Mr. McMahon believed that this case was a loser if it had gone to trial. Mr. McMahon opined that the only viable defense that could have been mounted at trial is the legal argument of causation. Mr. McMahon testified that he made Appellant aware of the option of going to trial, but that as of the time Appellant -4- J-S14018-13 executed the proffer agreement a few days after his arrest, appellant understood that he would be pleading guilty in order to get any kind of benefit from his cooperation. Nevertheless, prior to Appellant s guilty plea on July 6, 2009, Mr. McMahon reviewed with Appellant the guilty plea colloquy and the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. Mr. McMahon opined that at that time Appellant knew that the course of cooperation and his guilty plea was the best course of action and best option, rather than going to trial. Had Appellant gone to trial and been convicted he could have received a lengthy prison sentence, rather than 90days of work release that he was ultimately sentenced to. [The PCRA court dismissed Appellant s petition, concluding that Mr. McMahon s testimony was credible and that Appellant s testimony was inconsistent and inaccurate.] PCRA Court Opinion, 9/5/12, at 1-7. In his brief, Appellant asks us to review the following issues: Whether the PCRA court erred in determining that Appellant failed to plead and prove that he was entitled to relief. Whether the PCRA court erred in determining that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and/or present witnesses at the trial court level. Whether the PCRA court s determination that the testimony of John McMahon, Esquire was accurate and worthy of belief and that the testimony of the Appellant is inconsistent and inaccurate is not supported by the record. Whether the PCRA court erred in determining that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to fully review and present the discovery at the trial court level with the Appellant where Appellant specifically requested that trail counsel provide the discovery, thereby rendering his guilty plea involuntary and intelligent. Whether the PCRA court erred in failing to determine that the actual strategy chosen by trial counsel was one which a reasonable attorney would have pursued in light of the other alternatives available and that as a result of trial counsel s actions, in their totality that the Appellant suffered actual, substantial prejudice. -5- J-S14018-13 Whether the PCRA court erred in failing to allow the Appellant to present a witness at the PCRA hearing and/or by not allowing or ordering that PCRA Petition to be amended in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 905. Appellant s Brief at 4. We have carefully reviewed the certified record in this appeal, including the appellate submissions of the parties, the excellent opinion of the PCRA court, the filings before the PCRA court, and the notes of testimony from Appellant s PCRA hearing. Based upon our examination of these materials, we conclude that the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and that the court s legal determinations are free of error. Accordingly, we hold that the PCRA court did not error in dismissing Appellant s petition and that Appellant is not entitled to relief. Because we find that the PCRA court s opinion has adequately and accurately examined all of the issues raised by Appellant in this appeal, we adopt the court s opinion as our own. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/5/12. The parties are instructed to include a copy of the PCRA court s September 5, 2012 opinion with all future filings relating to our disposition in this appeal. Order affirmed. -6- J-S14018-13 Judgment Entered. Prothonotary Date: 5/14/2013 -7-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
