Com. v. Hartzfeld, R.
1356 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Appellant Randy P. Hartzfeld was convicted by jury of endangering the welfare of a child after he struck his infant fiancé’s child while babysitting, causing injury.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment and included a condition in the sentencing order that Appellant “shall have NO CONTACT with the victim and victim’s mother.”
- The court did not impose any term of probation; the sentence was solely a period of incarceration.
- Appellant filed post-sentence motions (denied), then obtained leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal and raised the legality of the no-contact condition.
- The Commonwealth did not file an appellee brief; the Superior Court reviewed the legality of the sentence sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lawfully imposed a no-contact special condition as part of a sentence of incarceration (and/or parole) | Commonwealth contended (implicitly) the court’s sentencing order was proper. | Hartzfeld argued the no-contact provision is illegal because it was not imposed as a probation condition, the court cannot set parole terms when sentence exceeds two years, and no statute authorizes conditions on incarceration. | The Superior Court vacated the no-contact condition in full: it is invalid as a probation condition (none was imposed), advisory only as to parole (Board controls parole conditions), and unauthorized as a condition of incarceration. The prison term itself was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mears, 972 A.2d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2009) (challenges to statutory authority for sentence implicate legality)
- Commonwealth v. Koren, 646 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 1994) (no-contact condition permissible on probation if reasonably related to rehabilitation)
- Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Board of Probation and Parole exclusively determines parole conditions for sentences with maximum two or more years)
- Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 (Pa. Super. 2006) (remand unnecessary where vacatur of discrete sentencing condition does not disturb overall sentencing scheme)