Com. v. Paci, P., Jr.
Com. v. Paci, P., Jr. No. 2089 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 30, 2017Background
- Appellant struck Victim in Susquehanna County after a bar altercation and then again with a car, leading to Victim’s death.
- Appellant pled guilty to third-degree murder and was sentenced January 22, 2015 to 12–30 years’ imprisonment.
- Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal following sentencing.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on December 9, 2015; counsel later amended.
- PCRA court granted relief in part, reinstating Appellant’s direct appellate rights nunc pro tunc, prompting this direct appeal from the 2015 judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive sentence and abuse of discretion? | Paci argues the sentence is excessive. | Commonwealth argues discretionary sentencing factors apply; waivers may bar review. | Waived due to lack of sentencing objections and failure to file post-sentence motion. |
| PCRA evidentiary hearing? | Paci seeks an evidentiary hearing on PCRA claims. | Paci appeals the PCRA order reinstating direct appellate rights, not the underlying judgment. | Court lacks jurisdiction over the PCRA-order issue because Appellant appealed the judgment, not the PCRA order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (waiver of challenges to discretionary sentencing when no objection at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discretionary-sentence review waived absent timely objection)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA direct-appeal finality timing for direct appeals)
- Novoseller v. Royal Globe Ins. Cos., 463 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Super. 1983) (PCRA direct-appeal timing principles)