Com. v. Davis, J.
528 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- James A. Davis pled guilty and was sentenced on February 3, 2016, across four Lackawanna County dockets: 14-CR-1890, 15-CR-1537, 15-CR-1543, and 15-CR-2227. He received various sentences including one year special probation on 14‑CR‑1890 to run consecutive to DUI sentences in the other dockets.
- On August 9, 2016 Davis filed a pleading in 14‑CR‑1890 that the court treated as a PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and later permitted to withdraw. The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and then dismissed the petition on February 27, 2017.
- Davis filed a pro se objection on January 24, 2017 (filed in all four dockets) raising sentencing, jurisdiction, alleged back‑dated/corrected orders, and double jeopardy claims; he then appealed on March 22, 2017.
- The Superior Court treated the filings as: (a) an appeal from the PCRA denial in 14‑CR‑1890 (timely), and (b) untimely direct appeals from sentences at the three other dockets, but also as first PCRA petitions at those three dockets because Davis’s January 24 filing raised collateral claims.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA denial in 14‑CR‑1890 (finding no improper sentence modification; any discrepancy was a clerical correction consistent with the transcript) but vacated and remanded 15‑CR‑1537, 15‑CR‑1543, and 15‑CR‑2227 for appointment of counsel and further PCRA proceedings because Davis had not been afforded counsel for his first PCRA petitions in those dockets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Court signed backdated/corrected orders (perjury/fraud) | Judge backdated and re‑signed sentencing orders in April 2016 that contradict original February 3, 2016 orders; this is fraud/perjury. | Transcript and certified sentencing order show the court imposed one year special probation on Feb. 3, 2016; any contrary paper is a clerical error. | Dismissed as meritless for 14‑CR‑1890: sentencing transcript controls and any discrepancy is a clerical correction the court may fix. |
| 2. Modification of sentence after 30 days; double jeopardy; lack of jurisdiction | Court improperly altered sentence for conspiracy after 30 days, turning concurrent into consecutive and increasing punishment (double jeopardy); defendant not present for modification. | No post‑sentencing modification occurred; transcript shows sentence of one year special probation consecutive to DUI sentences was imposed at sentencing. | Dismissed for 14‑CR‑1890: no unlawful modification; claims lacking merit. |
| 3. Trial and PCRA counsel ineffective | Trial counsel failed to advise of drug problem, advised guilty plea despite Rule 600 issue, and missed sentencing errors; PCRA counsel failed to raise trial counsel ineffectiveness. | Ineffective‑assistance claims were not raised in the PCRA petition and are unpreserved for appeal. | Not considered on appeal for 14‑CR‑1890 (claims not raised in PCRA, thus unpreserved). |
| 4. Timeliness and right to counsel for first PCRA petitions at remaining dockets | The January 24 pro se filing raised collateral sentencing/jurisdiction claims for all four dockets; appeals should be heard. | Appeals from the three other dockets are untimely as direct appeals; the January 24 filing should be treated as first PCRA petitions, which require appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners. | Superior Court vacated and remanded 15‑CR‑1537, 15‑CR‑1543, 15‑CR‑2227 for appointment of counsel and PCRA proceedings; affirmed 14‑CR‑1890 PCRA denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may correct clear clerical errors; sentence correction allowed when transcript shows intent)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (timely notice of appeal confers jurisdiction even if defective)
- Commonwealth v. McBride, 957 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate review limited to certified record)
- Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (first‑time indigent PCRA petitioner entitled to counsel; failure to appoint requires remand)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2005) (untimely post‑sentence motion may be treated as a PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Deaner, 779 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2001) (collateral petitions raising PCRA remedies are treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner/Finley standard for counsel withdrawal in collateral matters)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in collateral appeals)