Com. v. Min, J.
2024 Pa. Super. 159
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2024Background
- Joseph Yu Chi Min was convicted in 2014 of offenses relating to improper sexual contact with a minor and sentenced to 30-60 years; he was also found to be a sexually violent predator.
- Min's direct appeal was discontinued after his appellate counsel's death; he later filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel's ineffectiveness and sentencing errors.
- The Commonwealth conceded Min's original sentence was unconstitutional due to reliance on mandatory minimums and agreed to resentencing; his other claims were denied.
- Min was resentenced twice, with his final aggregate sentence being 20-40 years as of January 2018; Min did not appeal, and no action was taken until his pro se PCRA petition in 2023.
- The PCRA court dismissed this petition as untimely, treating it as a second PCRA petition and not appointing counsel, despite Min's claim of judicial bias in sentencing.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Min was entitled to counsel on this PCRA petition, given its relation to his 2018 resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Min’s 2023 PCRA petition his first regarding the 2018 resentencing? | It is the first PCRA petition targeting the new sentence. | It is a second (and untimely) PCRA petition for the entire conviction. | The petition is the first regarding the 2018 resentencing. |
| Is Min entitled to appointed counsel, despite apparent untimeliness? | Indigent first-time PCRA petitioners have a right to counsel. | No right to counsel on a facially untimely, second PCRA petition. | Min is entitled to appointed counsel regardless of timeliness. |
| Did the PCRA court err in dismissing the petition without appointing counsel? | Yes; right to counsel was not honored. | No; petition was properly denied as untimely and second. | The PCRA court erred; order vacated and remanded. |
| Does the petition’s connection to resentencing affect its timing? | Resentencing starts clock anew for sentence-related challenges. | No; time runs from original conviction finality. | Yes; resentencing resets time for sentence-related PCRA relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 818 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2003) (clarifying right to counsel on first PCRA petition even if untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (holding that defendant is entitled to first PCRA review of new sentence following resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA relief cannot stand unless petitioner is afforded counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014), aff’d, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (mandatory minimum sentences under § 9718 are unconstitutional)