Com. v. Hammond, E.
890 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Edward Hammond was serving a 3½ to 7-year sentence (docket 7923-2009) with 812 days credit; he was paroled and then arrested on new charges on November 7, 2013 (docket 3107-2014).
- Hammond was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of two firearms offenses and sentenced on October 23, 2014 to an aggregate 3–7 year term, with the sentencing order stating the sentence "shall commence on 10/23/14."
- The new convictions triggered parole revocation on the earlier docket; Hammond remained in custody to satisfy his backtime and was not reparoled on the original sentence until December 9, 2016.
- Hammond filed a pro se PCRA-like filing raising a denial of proper credit; counsel was appointed, an amended PCRA petition was filed, and the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing.
- Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley (Anders‑style) no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court found counsel complied with the withdrawal procedures and proceeded to review the merits.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of relief, holding Hammond was not entitled to have the new sentence begin in October 2014 because parole‑backtime on the prior sentence must be served first under the Parole Act.
Issues
| Issue | Hammond’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal procedures | Hammond implied counsel should continue; he later sought review | Counsel complied with Turner/Finley (filed no‑merit brief, notified client) | Court held counsel satisfied Turner/Finley/Anders requirements and permitted withdrawal |
| Whether Hammond was entitled to credit for time served and a sentence commencement date of 10/23/2014 | Hammond argued he was entitled to credit for custody from 11/7/2013 to 10/23/2014 (350 days) and that the sentencing order fixed commencement on 10/23/2014 | Commonwealth (and DOC) contended parole backtime on the original sentence must be served first so the new sentence could not commence until after backtime (Dec. 10, 2016) | Court held new sentence could not run until backtime on the original sentence was served; Hammond was not entitled to have the sentence run from 10/23/2014 |
| Proper procedural vehicle to challenge DOC computation | Hammond sought relief in PCRA | Commonwealth argued DOC computation challenge belongs in Commonwealth Court (original action) or habeas if sentencing ambiguity | Court noted PCRA cognizable only for trial‑court legal sentencing claims; computation disputes belong in Commonwealth Court; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kelley, 136 A.3d 1007 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (parolee must serve backtime before new state sentence may commence)
- Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (distinguishes proper vehicles for credit disputes and when PCRA is the remedy)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (describing Turner/Finley technical requirements for counsel withdrawal)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (no‑merit procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa.) (establishes standards for counsel seeking to withdraw in PCRA context)