Com. v. Mayo, R.
Com. v. Mayo, R. No. 1185 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Mayo pled guilty in 2009 to multiple drug- and conspiracy-related offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate 10–20 years, with the sentence deemed to commence November 13, 2008. He filed no post-sentence motions or direct appeal.
- On February 14, 2015, Mayo (pro se) submitted a "Petition for Credit for Time Spent in Custody," claiming custody beginning February 27–28, 2008 (detained at Rikers awaiting extradition). The clerk time-stamped the filing but did not docket it until February 24, 2016.
- The trial court purportedly denied the petition on March 13, 2015; the record lacks evidence Mayo received notice of that order. Because the petition was later docketed (2016), the court held a hearing and on July 1, 2016 issued an order granting limited credit (October 28–November 13, 2008).
- The Superior Court found the July 1, 2016 order was a nullity because the trial court had lost jurisdiction to alter its March 13, 2015 order after 30 days under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
- The Superior Court also concluded Mayo’s petition was cognizable under the PCRA (a challenge to the legality of sentence) and that Mayo, as an indigent first-time PCRA petitioner, was entitled to appointment of counsel; the trial court failed to appoint counsel or conduct a waiver colloquy.
- The Superior Court vacated the March 13, 2015 and July 1, 2016 orders and remanded for proceedings consistent with its decision (including appointment of counsel and appropriate PCRA handling). It declined to quash the appeal as untimely because of a court breakdown attributable to clerk errors.
Issues
| Issue | Mayo's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly modified/entered relief on Mayo's credit petition on July 1, 2016 after denying it March 13, 2015 | Mayo sought credit for custody time beginning Feb 27–28, 2008 (or at least Oct 28–Nov 13, 2008) | Court treated the later docketing/hearing as valid and granted partial credit | July 1, 2016 order is a legal nullity because trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify/enter relief more than 30 days after March 13, 2015 denial under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 |
| Whether the petition is cognizable outside the PCRA | Mayo framed it as a credit-for-time-served petition seeking sentencing credit | Commonwealth (and Superior Court) treat it as a collateral attack on sentence, thus PCRA cognizable | Claim challenges legality of sentence and is cognizable only under the PCRA |
| Whether Mayo’s pro se, first PCRA petition required appointment of counsel | Mayo proceeded pro se and is indigent; sought relief without counsel | Trial court failed to appoint counsel or take a waiver | Indigent first-time PCRA petitioner is entitled to appointment of counsel; trial court erred by not appointing counsel or conducting waiver colloquy |
| Whether the appeal should be quashed as untimely given petitioner failed to appeal March 13, 2015 order within 30 days | Mayo did not timely appeal but lacked notice and clerk mishandling occurred | Commonwealth could assert untimeliness | Superior Court declined to quash due to extraordinary circumstances/court breakdown caused by clerk errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (applies prisoner mailbox rule to pro se filings)
- Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995) (extraordinary circumstances/court breakdown justify extension/relief from timeliness rules)
- Commonwealth v. Liebensperger, 904 A.2d 40 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court loses authority to modify order after 30 days under § 5505)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is sole means for post-conviction relief)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (challenge to denial of pre-sentence custody credit challenges legality of sentence and is PCRA-cognizable)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 818 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2003) (indigent defendant entitled to counsel for first PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Van Allen, 597 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 1991) (PCRA court must determine indigence and appoint counsel before disposing of first PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for denial of PCRA relief)