Com. v. Pacheco-Morales, D.
1079 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Appellant Daniel Pacheco-Morales filed a pro se petition (styled coram nobis) on Nov. 4, 2016, challenging several prior Pennsylvania drug convictions and one sentence.
- The state trial court treated the filing as a PCRA petition and dismissed it by order entered Feb. 28, 2017 (entered Mar. 1, 2017).
- Appellant had earlier entered guilty pleas in 1996, 1997, and 1998 (dockets 4350‑1996, 586‑1997, 1947‑1998) and was convicted by jury in 2007 (docket 0385‑2002).
- Appellant conceded he was no longer serving any state sentence on the dockets he challenged, and argued his state convictions enhanced a separate federal sentence (career‑offender designation).
- The PCRA court denied relief and did not rule on Appellant’s March 27, 2017 motion for appointment of counsel; Appellant appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was properly treated as a PCRA filing but Appellant was ineligible for PCRA relief because he was not serving a sentence for the challenged convictions; the failure to appoint counsel and other procedural defects were harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the coram nobis petition should be treated as a PCRA petition | Pacheco‑Morales labeled the filing coram nobis and sought collateral relief from state convictions/sentence | Commonwealth: claims are cognizable under the PCRA and should be treated as such | Court: petition properly treated as a PCRA petition (PCRA is sole vehicle for collateral relief) |
| Whether Appellant is eligible for PCRA relief | Pacheco‑Morales sought relief because state convictions affected his federal sentence | Commonwealth: petitioner must be serving a sentence for the convictions to obtain PCRA relief | Court: Appellant ineligible under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i) because he is no longer serving sentences for those state convictions; PCRA relief denied |
| Whether failure to appoint PCRA counsel requires remand | Pacheco‑Morales requested appointment of counsel on appeal | Commonwealth: appointment unnecessary if petitioner is ineligible and remand would be futile | Court: failure to appoint counsel was harmless error; remand not warranted (Hart) |
| Whether failure to give Rule 907 notice requires remand | Pacheco‑Morales did not press this separately | Commonwealth: procedural defects are harmless where petitioner ineligible | Court: Rule 907 omission harmless under circumstances; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA is sole means for collateral relief and subsumes common‑law remedies)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PCRA eligibility requires petitioner to be currently serving sentence, probation, or parole for challenged conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to appoint counsel for first‑time PCRA petitioner who has served sentence is harmless and remand for counsel is futile)