Com. v. Hayward, B.
726 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- In 2009, Hayward was convicted after a bench trial of PWID, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of marijuana; sentenced in 2010 to 1–2 years' imprisonment for PWID and no further penalty for the other counts.
- Hayward completed his sentence on January 31, 2012 and filed no direct appeal or post-sentence motions.
- On September 26, 2014, while not incarcerated, Hayward (through counsel) filed a motion styled as a new-trial motion based on after-discovered evidence: several police officers involved in his case were later federally indicted for crimes including fabrication of evidence.
- The trial court treated the filing as a first PCRA petition, issued notice of intent to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, and dismissed the petition on February 5, 2016 because Hayward was no longer serving a sentence.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and petition to withdraw on appeal; the Superior Court found counsel complied with withdrawal procedures and considered whether the PCRA court correctly dismissed the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal requirements | Hayward implied counsel should pursue the after-discovered-evidence/new-trial claim on appeal | Counsel argued his Turner/Finley letter demonstrated a diligent review, identified the issue, explained its lack of merit, and informed Hayward of rights to proceed pro se or seek new counsel | Counsel complied with Turner/Finley; withdrawal permitted |
| Whether Hayward was eligible for PCRA relief based on after-discovered evidence of police misconduct | Hayward argued the officers' later federal indictments (including fabrication) entitled him to a new trial | Commonwealth argued Hayward was ineligible for PCRA relief because he was not serving a sentence when he filed the petition | Court held Hayward was ineligible; PCRA relief unavailable once sentence was completed; petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley no-merit procedure for PCRA counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the exclusive means for collateral relief and subsumes other remedies)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for denial of PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Turner/Finley compliance and court duties on counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 622 Pa. 318, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA eligibility depends on currently serving a sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 548 Pa. 544, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA relief unavailable after sentence completion)