Com. v. Keys, J.
3587 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- John A. Keys was convicted of robbery and PIC on December 24, 2004; on June 14, 2007 he received 25 to 50 years (mandatory third‑strike provision). Direct appeal and PA Supreme Court review concluded in April 2009.
- Keys filed a pro se PCRA in January 2010; that petition was denied and appeal dismissed for failure to file a brief. He filed the instant habeas/PCRA petition on April 3, 2014.
- Keys challenged (1) the calculation of credit for time served and (2) alleged unlawful detention because the Department of Corrections (DOC) purportedly lacked a written sentencing order.
- The PCRA court treated the submissions as a PCRA petition (except for a pure illegal‑detention claim), issued a Rule 907 notice, received a response, and dismissed the petition on October 14, 2016 as untimely; habeas relief was denied.
- Trial court records contained the original written sentencing orders and the Clerk’s docket reflected the sentence; the court held DOC nevertheless had authority to detain even if DOC lacked a copy of the written order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keys) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should be heard because sentencing order absence voids DOC detention | Keys contended lack of a written sentencing order meant his detention was unlawful and his judgment never became final | Commonwealth argued the claim is cognizable under the PCRA (timeliness rules apply) and court records contain the written order; DOC may detain based on court records/docketing | Denied — petition treated under PCRA; court records show written order and detention lawful |
| Whether PCRA petition was timely | Keys asserted his sentence unlawfulness prevented finality, so his 2014 filing was timely | Commonwealth argued judgment became final April 2009; PCRA one‑year time bar applies and no exception was pleaded | Denied — petition was untimely (filed ~4 years late) and Keys failed to prove an exception |
| Whether any exception to the PCRA time‑bar applies | Keys claimed judgment never final due to unlawful sentence | Commonwealth maintained Keys did not plead facts to establish statutory exceptions ((b)(1)(i)–(iii)) | Denied — Keys did not prove any of the narrow exceptions |
| Whether relief for DOC sentence computation should be granted here | Keys sought correction of time‑credit/detention | Commonwealth noted sentence‑computation disputes are for the DOC and, if needed, a collateral action in Commonwealth Court | Denied in this forum — computation challenge not remediable via untimely PCRA; Commonwealth Court original action is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ousley v. Commonwealth, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (substance over form: habeas claims cognizable under PCRA must be filed as PCRA petitions)
- Haun v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA is the sole means for post‑conviction relief when it can provide a remedy)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (DOC may continue detention even if it lacks a written sentencing order)
- Heredia v. Commonwealth, 97 A.3d 392 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentence‑computation disputes are properly raised as original actions in Commonwealth Court)