Com. v. Algarin, F.
Com. v. Algarin, F. No. 2212 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Algarin, convicted in 1994 of first-degree murder and related offenses after a jury trial; life sentence for murder with consecutive terms on other charges.
- Mina Myers was killed by Algarin; Algarin later arranged a beating of a witness who had been informed of the murder.
- Appellant pursued post-conviction relief through multiple PCRA petitions, beginning in 1998, with prior petitions denied as untimely or meritless.
- The current petition, filed December 2015 (supplemental February 2016), was dismissed as untimely by the PCRA court; habeas considerations were addressed in the same petition.
- On appeal, Algarin argues (A) lack of jurisdiction due to defective charging information, (B) 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a) as unconstitutional, and (C) lack of a valid sentencing order under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8).
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court, holding that (i) issues fell under the PCRA timeliness framework, (ii) the sentencing-order argument followed Joseph v. Glunt and could not compel relief, and (iii) the petition was untimely absent a proven timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion in treating the claims as PCRA claims and dismissing them for untimeliness. | Algarin argues timeliness exceptions apply; claims were not properly subject to PCRA. | Commonwealth contends claims cognizable under PCRA and time-barred. | No; claims cognizable under PCRA, no timeliness exception proven; petition properly dismissed. |
| Whether the information charging Algarin elsewise deprived the court of jurisdiction. | Algarin contends lack of jurisdiction due to defective information. | Commonwealth argues jurisdiction vested and claims cognizable under PCRA. | No; court properly treated as PCRA claim and rejected on merits/timeliness. |
| Whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a) violates due process and is void under vagueness. | Algarin asserts statute unconstitutional for sentencing. | Commonwealth defends statute as properly applied. | Rejected; issue cognizable under PCRA and not proven as violative. |
| Whether DOC detention lacked a lawful sentencing order under § 9764(a)(8) and entitles relief. | DOC cannot detain without written sentencing order. | Joseph v. Glunt forecloses relief; statute governs transfer procedures, not detention rights. | No abuse of discretion; Joseph controls; relief not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness and PCRA scope; cannot avoid PCRA by labeling as habeas)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing-order issue not provide relief; procedures for transfer, not remedy)
- Hockenberry, 689 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1997) (challenge to legality of sentence cognizable under PCRA)
- Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limitations jurisdictional; requires timely filing)
- Haun, 613 Pa. 97, 32 A.3d 697 (2011) (PCRA as sole means of post-conviction relief)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (PCRA procedures and procedures precedent)
- Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley no-merit guidance for PCRA petitions)