Com. of Pa. Ex Rel. Schell, T. v. Link, C.
Com. of Pa. Ex Rel. Schell, T. v. Link, C. No. 3383 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- In 1976 Theodore W. Schell, Sr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced (on Sept. 14, 1977) to two concurrent life terms; other sentences were suspended.
- Schell filed a habeas corpus petition in Delaware County Civil Division (Sept. 19, 2016), alleging the written sentencing order defined "life" as 7½ to 15 years and imposed those terms consecutively, producing a 15–30 year aggregate sentence.
- Schell claimed he has completed the maximum term reflected in the written order yet remains detained, so his detention is illegal.
- The trial court dismissed the habeas petition, ruling the claims were cognizable under the PCRA and must be raised in a PCRA petition in the criminal division.
- The Superior Court disagreed that Schell’s claim was cognizable under the PCRA, concluding his claim challenged the legality of continued detention based on the court’s sentencing order and was properly raised by habeas corpus, but found the petition was filed in the wrong division.
- The Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for the trial court to transfer the habeas petition to the criminal division using the applicable criminal docket numbers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schell’s claim is cognizable under the PCRA | Schell argued his detention is illegal because he already served the maximum term as shown on the sentencing order; this is a habeas claim | Trial court argued sentencing-legality claims fall under the PCRA and must be raised there | Held: Not PCRA-cognizable; habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for alleged unlawful detention under the written sentencing order |
| Whether habeas petition was filed in proper division/venue | Schell filed in Civil Division of Delaware County | Commonwealth argued venue/jurisdiction require filing in court of record from which detention order came (criminal division) | Held: Petition was filed in wrong division; must be transferred to the criminal division using criminal docket numbers |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed habeas for procedural misfiling | Schell sought relief on merits of illegal detention | Trial court dismissed on ground that PCRA exclusivity precluded habeas | Held: Dismissal on PCRA grounds was error; vacated and remanded for transfer |
| Availability of any other remedy for Schell’s alleged condition of detention | Schell asserted no other adequate remedy exists besides habeas | Commonwealth relied on PCRA being sole collateral remedy for sentencing issues | Held: Court found no other remedy for alleged finished maximum-term detention; habeas appropriate in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2004) (issues concerning legality of sentence are cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is intended as sole means of collateral relief for cognizable claims)
- Com. ex rel. Fortune v. Dragovich, 792 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Super. 2002) (habeas corpus is proper when no other remedy is available for alleged unlawful detention)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (habeas corpus appropriate where DOC lacks a valid sentencing order)
- Brown v. Department of Corrections, 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013) (habeas venue lies in court of record from which the detention order issued)