Com. v. Hackworth, S.
133 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Shane Cody Hackworth pleaded guilty in 2008–2009 to multiple drug offenses at two dockets and was placed on probation; subsequent guilty pleas in 2009 resulted in probation revocation and an aggregate sentence of 19 to 96 months’ incarceration plus probation.
- Hackworth did not file a post‑sentence motion or timely direct appeal from the 2009 revocation sentence.
- In December 2016 and January 2017 he filed pro se "Motions for Reconsideration of Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc" at both dockets, alleging trial counsel ineffectiveness and that certain charges should have been merged for sentencing.
- The trial court denied both motions as untimely without treating them as PCRA petitions, appointing counsel, or holding Grazier hearings.
- The Superior Court concluded the pro se motions raised claims cognizable under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) and that the trial court should have treated them as PCRA petitions and provided counsel; it vacated the trial court orders and remanded for counsel to file an amended PCRA petition or a petition to withdraw with a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter.
Issues
| Issue | Hackworth's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have treated pro se motions as PCRA petitions | Motions alleged ineffective assistance and illegal sentencing (failure to merge), cognizable collateral claims | Motions were untimely post‑sentence motions and could be denied as such | Court held motions raised PCRA‑cognizable claims and should have been treated as PCRA petitions |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motions without appointing counsel | Hackworth sought relief pro se and later requested counsel | Trial court denied as untimely without appointing counsel | Court held trial court should have appointed counsel once treated as PCRA petitions |
| Whether a Grazier hearing or counsel appointment was required before proceeding | Hackworth needed counsel to pursue collateral claims effectively | Commonwealth proceeded to deny motions as untimely without such procedures | Court required appointment of counsel and opportunity to file an amended PCRA petition or run Turner/Finley process |
| Proper post‑remand procedure | Hackworth wanted his claims considered on collateral review | Commonwealth defended procedural posture | Court remanded: counsel may file amended PCRA petition or petition to withdraw with a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; trial court must follow PCRA procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (standards for counsel withdrawal/Anders‑type review)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (defendant’s right to proceed pro se and related procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims generally raised on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 814 A.2d 209 (Pa. Super. 2002) (challenge to failure to merge counts is a legality‑of‑sentence claim)
- Commonwealth v. Hockenberry, 689 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1997) (untimely motion to modify sentence challenging legality should be treated as PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA is exclusive vehicle for post‑conviction collateral relief)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw from PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for no‑merit letters when counsel seeks to withdraw under PCRA)