Com. v. Grayson, P.
169 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Phillip Grayson pleaded guilty on September 19, 2016 to corruption of minors, indecent assault of a child under 13, and endangering the welfare of children, under a plea agreement that dismissed other charges.
- The court sentenced Grayson to an aggregate 12 years probation with conditions (no contact with victim/minors, no internet, etc.).
- Grayson timely filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on September 28, 2016; the court denied the motion by order dated December 7, 2016 (filed December 12, 2016).
- Grayson moved for reconsideration on December 16, 2016; that motion was denied by order dated January 6, 2017 (filed January 10, 2017).
- Grayson filed a notice of appeal on January 20, 2017 — beyond the 30-day appeal deadline running from December 12, 2016 — and the Superior Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grayson’s notice of appeal was timely | Grayson contends appellate rights were not properly communicated, or court process broke down, excusing late filing | Commonwealth argues notice of appeal was filed after the 30-day period post denial and no tolling applied | Appeal untimely; court lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeal |
| Whether trial court complied with Pa.R.Crim.P. 704’s on-record advisement requirement | Grayson/dissent argued the court failed to properly advise appellate rights on the record | Commonwealth pointed to the signed Guilty Plea Explanation and on-the-record colloquy confirming advisement | Court found Rule 704 satisfied by the written form and oral colloquy |
| Whether trial court’s order denying the post-sentence motion complied with Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 and whether noncompliance constitutes an administrative breakdown | Grayson argued the order lacked specific advisement required by Rule 720, creating a breakdown that would excuse lateness | Commonwealth noted Grayson had filed a timely post-sentence motion and therefore had the full 30-day appeal window after the denial; the court used Grayson’s proposed order but this did not amount to breakdown | No breakdown; Rule 720 issues in precedent do not apply because Grayson had a full 30 days and the court did not mislead or act improperly |
| Effect of motion for reconsideration on tolling appeal period | Grayson argued reconsideration filing tolled the appeal period or that the court’s handling of orders created ambiguity | Commonwealth argued the court did not expressly grant reconsideration within 30 days, so tolling did not occur | Motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period because the court never expressly granted reconsideration within the rule’s timeframe |
Key Cases Cited
- Moir v. Commonwealth, 766 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appeal-timeliness and tolling rules; appeal period not tolled absent express grant of reconsideration)
- Valentine v. Commonwealth, 928 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2007) (time limits for appeals are strictly construed and cannot be extended)
- Patterson v. Commonwealth, 940 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court failure to comply with Rule 720 can constitute administrative breakdown excusing untimely appeal)
- Bass v. Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979) (negligence of appellant or counsel does not excuse untimely filings)
- Union Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review of Allegheny County, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (definition of administrative breakdown in court processes)