Com. v. Daddario, R.
383 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- In 2006 Appellant Richard Daddario was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against a 15‑year‑old and sentenced to 25–90 years; he was later resentenced by agreement on July 2, 2010 to 16½–33 years, with fines, costs, fees, and an itemized balance attached.
- As part of the 2010 agreement Appellant waived direct appeal and PCRA claims of ineffective assistance; the sentencing order included fines/costs and showed an outstanding balance, and Appellant made some payments while incarcerated.
- Over several years Appellant filed multiple pro se and counseled PCRA petitions; most were dismissed as untimely or otherwise denied on appeal.
- On July 28, 2016 a praecipe was filed and the prothonotary entered a civil judgment for collection of fines, costs, and fees in the amount reflected on the docket.
- On December 22, 2016 Appellant filed a pro se “Motion to Amend Costs/Fees/Fines and Restitution,” which the PCRA court treated as a PCRA petition and dismissed as untimely; Appellant appealed and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | PCRA/Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 2016 motion alleging the July 2016 judgment rendered his sentence illegal was a timely PCRA petition | Daddario argued the July 2016 prothonotary judgment was a newly‑discovered fact and he filed within 60 days, so the petition fit a §9545(b)(1) exception | The claim attacks sentence legality but was filed five years after finality and no timeliness exception was shown | Court held petition untimely; appellant did not prove a §9545 exception and PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether entry of the civil judgment violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (modification after 30 days) | Daddario argued the prothonotary’s July 2016 judgment unlawfully modified his sentence beyond §5505’s 30‑day window | Commonwealth/PCRA court: the prothonotary merely entered a collection judgment under §9728, not a resentencing or modification | Court held §5505 inapplicable because no sentence modification occurred—the entry was a collection docketing under §9728 |
| Whether the PCRA court should have treated the motion as a writ of mandamus challenging county clerk actions | Daddario invoked Commonwealth v. Williams to recharacterize the filing as mandamus against county clerk fees | Commonwealth noted Daddario never raised this theory below | Court found the argument waived for failure to raise in the PCRA court |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in jurisdictional/timeliness analysis | Daddario contended the court misapplied timeliness exceptions | Commonwealth maintained the petition was clearly untimely and unsupported by due diligence or new‑fact showing | Court affirmed dismissal; even if trial court misread one point, appellate court may affirm on any correct basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 830 A.2d 663 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (identifies procedural avenues to seek modification of sentence and treatment of cost/restitution claims)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (illegal‑sentence claims are cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 909 A.2d 419 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (discusses relief against county officers for improper fee assessments)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (illegal sentencing issues still must be presented in timely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 151 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court may affirm trial court ruling on any correct basis)