Com. v. Montgomery, R.
Com. v. Montgomery, R. No. 1560 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- In 2007 Montgomery pleaded guilty to theft by unlawful taking and was sentenced to five years probation; he did not appeal and the sentence became final in July 2007.
- Montgomery incurred multiple probation violations (2011, 2012), resulting in jail time and a 2012 revocation sentence of 4–50 months; he filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2012 which led to a Grazier hearing on counsel waiver.
- After counsel was appointed on remand, the court vacated the 4–50 month term in January 2014 and reimposed probation; an amended order in February 2014 clarified immediate release and continued supervised probation.
- Between 2014–2016 Montgomery accrued additional bench warrants and, following a May 10, 2016 revocation hearing, the court ordered him to serve the remaining four months in jail; he did not appeal that revocation sentence.
- Montgomery filed a second, untimely PCRA petition in September 2016 challenging the February 2014 modification as an illegal sentence; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Montgomery argued his sentence is illegal because the Feb. 2014 order modified sentence after the 30‑day amendment period, making later sentences unlawful and thus tolling PCRA time bar | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely: judgment of sentence became final Feb. 20, 2014, so petition filed Sept. 2016 was outside the one‑year PCRA filing window and Montgomery did not plead a recognized exception | Held: Petition is patently untimely; Montgomery failed to plead a time‑bar exception, so court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
| Applicability of revocation finality rule | Montgomery relied on challenge to earlier (2014) sentencing order rather than the 2016 revocation | Commonwealth noted for claims directly arising from a revocation, the finality date is the revocation sentence (June 10, 2016) and Montgomery did not challenge that sentence directly | Held: Montgomery’s claim attacks the 2014 order, not the 2016 revocation, so it is doubly untimely and not cognizable under the revocation‑finality rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 789 A.2d 728 (Pa. Super. 2001) (judgment of sentence becomes final after 30 days if no direct appeal is filed)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedure for waiving counsel and obtaining counsel on remand)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA court’s denial reviewed for legal error and record support)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and exceptions are narrowly prescribed)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 788 A.2d 1019 (Pa. 2001) (finality for PCRA purposes runs from revocation sentence for claims arising from that hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA relief requires petitioner be serving a sentence at time relief is granted)