Com. v. Munson, I.
Com. v. Munson, I. No. 3160 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Munson pled guilty in 2007 to possession with intent to deliver marijuana and received 11.5–23 months incarceration plus two years’ probation.
- While on probation Munson was arrested and in January 2011 pled nolo contendere to luring a child into a motor vehicle and corruption of minors, receiving 1–5 years on the luring count and five years’ probation on the corruption counts to run consecutively.
- A probation violation hearing in the original matter was repeatedly continued for administrative reasons (court scheduling, video-conferencing issues, snow closure, defendant not brought down).
- On June 21, 2012 the court revoked Munson’s probation and sentenced him to 2–4 years’ incarceration to run consecutively to the sentence for the luring conviction.
- Munson sought relief arguing the approximately 17‑month delay between the new conviction (Jan 11, 2011) and the revocation hearing (June 21, 2012) violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 708 and prejudiced him by increasing his incarceration time; the Superior Court affirmed but remanded to correct a clerical docket error reflecting concurrency instead of the correct consecutive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Munson was denied a speedy probation-revocation hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 708 | Munson: 17‑month delay was not "speedily as possible"; delay prejudiced him by increasing incarceration | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: delays were administrative, not Commonwealth‑caused; Munson was already incarcerated on the new conviction so no prejudice | Court held delay not a ground for relief: although length was substantial, delays were administrative and Munson suffered no prejudice because revocation was based on new conviction and did not extend his incarceration time |
| Whether Munson was prejudiced by the delay (loss of witnesses/evidence or unnecessary restraint of liberty) | Munson: delay increased time he would have to serve (unnecessary restraint) | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: no loss of defense evidence; Munson already incarcerated on the triggering conviction so liberty not further restrained | Held Munson failed to show prejudice; conviction conclusively established violation and he was not incarcerated additional time due to the delay |
| Whether sentencing order or docket controls when they conflict | Munson relied on docket entry indicating concurrent sentence | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: written sentencing order and oral pronouncement specified consecutive sentence | Held written sentencing order controls; docket entry was a clerical error and must be corrected |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Woods, 965 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sets out analysis for whether delay in probation-revocation hearing is reasonable)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 847 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2004) (prejudice analysis where defendant already incarcerated on triggering charges)
- Commonwealth v. Christmas, 995 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no prejudice where new conviction conclusively establishes probation violation and defendant already incarcerated)
- Commonwealth v. Marchesano, 544 A.2d 1333 (Pa. 1988) (definition of prejudice as affecting probative value/reliability of revocation outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) (written sentencing order controls when discrepancy exists)