262 A.3d 589
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Gerald Howard Davis, Jr. pleaded guilty in 2012 to multiple robberies and related offenses; the trial court imposed an aggregate 22–44 year sentence in 2013, which included mandatory minimums under § 9712.
- Davis filed a PCRA petition relying on Alleyne, the Commonwealth conceded illegality of the mandatory minimums, and the trial court vacated the original sentence and resentenced Davis to 17–40 years at a February 19, 2016 hearing.
- Davis appealed the 2016 resentencing (consolidated with Commonwealth v. Fields); the Superior Court issued an en banc decision with a majority, a concurrence/dissent (OISR), and a separate minority opinion disagreed on waiver and vacatur issues; the Supreme Court denied review.
- Davis filed a subsequent PCRA petition in 2019; after counsel withdrawals and a Rule 907 notice, the PCRA court denied relief in July 2020; Davis appealed pro se and raised two primary claims about the 2016 proceedings and counsel effectiveness.
- The Superior Court (this opinion) reviewed whether the resentencing was void because the original sentence had not been vacated at the time of resentencing, and whether the PCRA court lacked authority under § 9543(a)(1)(i) to grant relief on counts where Davis was serving "no further penalty."
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court: the record (transcript and orders) shows the original sentence was vacated at the February 19, 2016 proceeding; the court could vacate the entire sentencing scheme and resentence, so counsel were not ineffective for failing to press meritless claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb. 19, 2016 resentencing was void because the original 1/18/13 sentence had not been vacated, and whether PCRA/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to object/preserve | Davis: docketing shows resentencing occurred before a vacatur order; no vacatur was filed then; sentence is void and counsel should have objected/appealed | PCRA court/Commonwealth: transcript shows court and parties understood PCRA relief was granted at the hearing and the original sentence was vacated; the two dated orders reflect vacatur and resentencing; counsel cannot be ineffective for a meritless objection | Court: Denied relief — vacatur occurred at the hearing; order timing on docket immaterial; counsel not ineffective because claim was meritless |
| Whether the PCRA court lacked authority under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i) to grant relief and resentence on counts for which Davis was serving "no further penalty," and whether counsel were ineffective for failing to raise this eligibility claim | Davis: he was not "currently serving a sentence" on those counts so he was ineligible for PCRA relief as to them; counsel should have preserved this eligibility challenge | PCRA court/Commonwealth: PCRA court may vacate entire sentencing scheme when one part is illegal to preserve an integrated sentencing scheme (restructuring may affect counts with no further penalty); Matin is distinguishable; Bartrug supports vacating whole scheme | Court: Denied relief — PCRA court permissibly vacated the entire sentence and restructured it; Matin differs factually; counsel not ineffective because no prejudice and claim lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Fields, 197 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc Superior Court decision addressing PCRA vacatur/resentencing and waiver arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Matin, 832 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding petitioner is ineligible for PCRA relief once sentence for the challenged conviction is completed)
- Commonwealth v. Bartrug, 732 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1999) (approving vacatur of entire multi-count sentencing scheme to permit restructuring when one part is illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (ineffective assistance framework: arguable merit, reasonable basis, prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 807 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2002) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims)