Com. v. Baker, B.
320 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Brandon S. Baker filed a pro se PCRA petition raising claims tied to two DUI dockets: CP-56-CR-0000639-2006 (639-06) and CP-56-CR-0000481-2015 (481-15).
- At 639-06 Baker pleaded guilty (DUI, second offense) and was sentenced in 2007; parole was later revoked and he served remaining time.
- At 481-15 Baker pleaded guilty (DUI, fourth offense/refusal) and was sentenced in January 2016 to 12 months to 5 years, including a one-year mandatory minimum for a third offense.
- Baker’s pro se PCRA argued unlawful blood draw/search-warrant requirements (citing Birchfield), HIPAA/medical-privacy violations from disclosure of a DL-26 form, and sentencing errors including enhanced penalties for refusal.
- The PCRA court dismissed relief: the 639-06 dismissal (Nov. 29, 2016) was not appealed timely; the 481-15 dismissal (Dec. 27, 2016) led to Baker’s appeal but there was a service breakdown to appointed PCRA counsel.
- The Superior Court (this opinion) quashed the appeal as to 639-06, found grounds to hear the late appeal for 481-15 (service breakdown), denied counsel’s petition to withdraw under Turner/Finley/Freeland procedural requirements, and remanded for counsel either to file an advocate’s brief or a proper Turner/Finley no‑merit brief.
Issues
| Issue | Baker's Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeal timeliness (639-06 vs 481-15) | Appeal should reach the Court for both dockets | Notice of appeal was untimely for 639-06; 481-15 appeal untimely but service breakdown excused | 639-06 appeal quashed; 481-15 appeal heard due to court service breakdown |
| Counsel withdrawal under Turner/Finley/Freeland | Counsel may withdraw after filing no‑merit letter | Counsel filed a Turner/Finley brief but it did not list/explain all issues from Baker’s pro se petition or show independent review as Freeland requires | Counsel’s petition to withdraw denied; ordered to file an advocate’s brief or a compliant Turner/Finley brief within 30 days |
| HIPAA/medical-privacy claim re: DL-26 form | DL-26 (Chemical Testing Warning/Refusal) is a medical record protected by HIPAA and was disclosed improperly | DL-26 is an officer-prepared arrest form, not a medical facility record; record lacks support for HIPAA protection | PCRA court found no merit; Superior Court required PCRA counsel to explain rejection of claim in a compliant brief before final disposition |
| Fourth Amendment/Birchfield challenge to enhanced penalties for refusal | Enhanced penalties based on refusal without warrant violate Birchfield and the Fourth Amendment | PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley brief failed to address the Birchfield-based claim; PCRA court had dismissed the claim but counsel didn’t justify meritlessness | Issue not adequately addressed by counsel; Superior Court ordered counsel to address it in the required brief so the claim can be reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for appellate review of counsel’s proposed withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (requiring no‑merit letter when post-conviction counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (no‑merit letters must list each issue petitioner wants examined and explain why meritless)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (Fourth Amendment limits on warrantless blood draws and consequences for refusal)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (pro se filings should be referred to counsel)