Com. v. Gage, K.
Com. v. Gage, K. No. 1219 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Police responded to a shooting and a related retaliatory threat; a confidential informant said Gage was hiding with a gun at a laundromat.
- Officers entered the laundromat, saw Gage near a locked laundry bin, searched and handcuffed him, found cash on his person, then arrested him and asked about items in the laundromat.
- Police searched the laundry bin and recovered a .22 revolver (recently fired), a bag of crack cocaine, and many empty Ziploc bags; surveillance video showed Gage approach the bin and make hand motions.
- Gage was convicted (jury and bench) of PWID, possession, paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm; sentenced to mandatory minimum terms totaling consecutive prison time.
- Direct appeal was initially dismissed for counsel’s failure to file a brief, later reinstated nunc pro tunc; this PCRA petition was filed after direct review concluded and was denied without a hearing.
- On PCRA appeal Gage raised claims attacking the suppression ruling, the seizure of cash and a phone, counsel’s effectiveness for not noting others in the area, and illegality of mandatory minimums under Alleyne.
Issues
| Issue | Gage's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to suppress (Fourth Amendment) | Evidence seized unlawfully; suppression should have been granted | Issue was previously litigated on direct appeal; denial stands | Denial affirmed — claim previously litigated, meritless on PCRA review |
| 2. Seizure of $870 and cell phone | Confiscation was unlawful | Claim could have been raised earlier and is therefore waived | Waived for failure to raise before PCRA; not considered on collateral review |
| 3. Ineffective assistance for failing to raise that others occupied area | Prior counsel ineffective for not noting other occupants where items were found | Claim not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement and was not developed on appeal | Waived for preservation and undeveloped argument; no relief granted |
| 4. Sentence illegality under Alleyne (mandatory minimums) | Mandatory minimums make sentence illegal after Alleyne | Gage’s judgment became final before Alleyne; Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Denied — Alleyne inapplicable retroactively to Gage’s final sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (issue waived if not raised prior to PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellant must develop arguments on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to link facts to law waives claim)
- Commonwealth v. Hakala, 900 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. 2006) (waiver for lack of analysis or citation)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) preservation requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no-merit letter procedure)