Com. v. Hairston, D., 116 MDA 2017

Background

Davon Hairston was convicted by a jury on September 19, 2013 of multiple offenses (robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, conspiracy, etc.) and found to have used a firearm; he received an aggregate sentence of 84 to 168 months on November 26, 2013.
Hairston did not file a direct appeal initially; his direct-appeal rights were later reinstated nunc pro tunc by the PCRA court on February 10, 2015.
On direct appeal he raised only a competency/psychiatric-evaluation claim; the Superior Court affirmed his judgment of sentence and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
Hairston filed a post-sentence motion in July 2016, treated as a first PCRA petition; appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw after identifying several proposed claims Hairston wanted raised.
The PCRA court granted counsel’s withdrawal, issued a Rule 907 notice, and dismissed the petition after Hairston did not file a response; Hairston appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
Superior Court considered five pro se issues (consolidated/summarized below) and affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal, finding most claims waived or meritless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hairston)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Court)	Held
Whether court violated due process by not ordering a pre‑sentence investigation or decertification hearing	Trial court should have considered decertification of juvenile status and ordered a PSI to determine if transfer was warranted	Claims were waived (not raised earlier); record shows a PSI was ordered; issue not preserved	Waived and meritless; PCRA court did not err
Whether Hairston lacked formal notice of charges	He lacked specific formal notice and thus could not defend himself	Information, amended information, and arraignment notice provided formal, specific notice	Meritless — formal notice was provided
Whether the sentencing scheme/statutory authority was illegal (court lacked authority because of separation of Sentencing and Crimes Codes)	Sentencing authority was stripped after code separation; sentence from Crimes Code is without statutory authorization	Fundamental misunderstanding: crimes are defined in Crimes Code; sentencing authority comes from Sentencing Code (42 Pa.C.S. § 9721); sentence authorized	Meritless — court had statutory sentencing authority
Whether the Judgment of Sentence was defective (failure to cite statutes/denial of due process)	Judgment failed to indicate statutes and violated due process, rendering sentence illegal	Constitutional sentencing claims raised first on appeal are waived; even on merits failure to cite statute on judgment does not make sentence illegal where court had authority	Waived; alternatively meritless under existing precedent

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Swartzfager, 59 A.3d 616 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appeal ripening doctrine when a later final order cures premature appeal)
Commonwealth v. Cooper, 27 A.3d 994 (Pa. 2011) (appeal perfected by subsequent actions making earlier premature appeal ripe)
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (scope of appellate review limited to record and PCRA court findings)
Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (criminal information satisfies formal notice requirements)
Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (constitutional sentencing claims waived if not preserved; failure to cite statute on sentencing order does not automatically render sentence illegal)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards governing counsel’s withdrawal in post‑conviction proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for court review of counsel’s no‑merit letter on post‑conviction counsel withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Wallace, 533 A.2d 1051 (Pa. Super. 1987) (preservation requirement for constitutional claims)

Order affirmed.