Com. v. Everett, M.
3543 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- Maurice Everett was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeal affirmed in 1997.
- Everett filed multiple collateral petitions (PCRA and others); prior PCRA petitions were dismissed as untimely; the instant filing (Dec. 23, 2014) was captioned "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus."
- Everett claimed the Department of Corrections (DOC) lacked authority to continue detaining him because it had not produced a written sentencing order.
- The trial court treated the filing alternatively as a fifth PCRA petition (untimely) and as a habeas petition (meritless), citing precedent that DOC may detain without possessing the physical sentencing order if the sentencing court’s record exists.
- The Superior Court reviewed the petition as a habeas corpus petition (following Joseph v. Glunt) and affirmed the denial, holding Everett’s claim did not warrant release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC must produce a written sentencing order as a prerequisite to lawful detention | Everett: DOC lacked authority to detain him absent production of the written sentencing order | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: Section 9764 governs transfer procedures and recordkeeping but does not strip DOC of detention authority or create a release remedy for nonproduction | Denied — DOC may continue detention so long as the sentencing court’s judgment and docketing exist; failure to produce the order is not a habeas-release ground (affirmed) |
| Whether the petition is cognizable under the PCRA or as habeas corpus | Everett characterized petition as habeas; argued statutory/constitutional defects in detention | Commonwealth: Generally PCRA is sole collateral remedy, but habeas may be appropriate for claims challenging the legality of confinement | Treated as habeas (per Joseph); court reviewed habeas claim on the merits and denied it |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa.Super. 2014) (holding claim that DOC's inability to produce sentencing order may sound in habeas but does not automatically require release)
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013) (noting challenges to legality of commitment are properly characterized as habeas corpus)
- Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA is the sole means for collateral relief and subsumes other remedies, subject to limits)
- Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007) (discussing boundaries between PCRA and habeas remedies)