Com. v. Barkman, A.
1587 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Alan Barkman pled guilty in 2012 to DUI—general impairment and was sentenced to four years intermediate punishment; that sentence was later revoked and he was re-sentenced in December 2014.
- In 2014 Barkman pled guilty to two additional DUI charges (DUI-higher rate and DUI-highest rate) arising from March 16 and May 4, 2014 stops.
- On December 3, 2014 the court imposed consecutive terms: 24–60 months for the re-sentenced 2012 DUI, and 16–60 months each for the two 2014 DUI convictions (aggregate 56–180 months, later reduced to a 42‑month minimum under RRRI).
- Barkman appealed the 2014 DUI sentences; this Court affirmed. He later filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 4, 2016 and counsel was appointed.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on September 21, 2016. Barkman appealed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel satisfied Turner/Finley procedural requirements to withdraw | Counsel complied with Turner/Finley by conducting review, filing no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw | Barkman did not dispute procedural compliance | Court: Counsel met Turner/Finley technical requirements; withdrawal permitted |
| Whether Barkman’s PCRA petition was timely / whether court had jurisdiction over the re‑sentencing challenge | Barkman contended his challenges merited PCRA review | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely as to the 2012 re‑sentencing and no timeliness exception was pled | Court: 2012 re‑sentencing became final Jan 2, 2015; petition filed Apr 4, 2016 — untimely and no exception pleaded, so court lacked jurisdiction as to that conviction |
| Whether sentences for the two 2014 DUI convictions were illegal | Barkman argued the DUI‑higher rate plea/sentence was improper and that DUI‑highest rate was not a third offense; also raised excessiveness and plea‑agreement claims | Commonwealth argued plea colloquy and record show guilty pleas and proper prior‑offense counting; discretionary claims not cognizable on PCRA | Court: Plea colloquy shows guilty pleas; prior 2012 conviction counts; statutory maxima matched imposed sentences; sentences legal; discretionary/plea‑agreement claims not cognizable on PCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standard for counsel seeking withdrawal in collateral proceedings)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (companion authority on counsel withdrawal/no‑merit procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2016) (describing Turner/Finley duties in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 159 A.3d 531 (Pa. Super. 2017) (timeliness of PCRA petitions and scope of review for illegal sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary sentencing claims not cognizable on PCRA)