Com. v. Parker, A., 249 A.3d 590

On May 7, 2011, Alton M. Parker drove the wrong way into a block party, crashed through tables and inflatable playhouses containing children, and wielded a hatchet at bystanders and police. Several victims suffered injuries; one nine-year-old suffered severe, long-term trauma.
Police arrested Parker; a hospital blood draw detected PCP at levels consistent with recent, psychoactive use.
A non-jury trial (May 2013) convicted Parker of multiple offenses (including aggravated assault and DUI–controlled substances); the court imposed an aggregate 18–36 year sentence.
After collateral proceedings, the PCRA court (Jan. 30, 2019) granted relief—vacating sentence and ordering a new trial—based on application of Birchfield v. North Dakota to suppress warrantless blood-test penalties.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court later held in Commonwealth v. Olson that Birchfield does not apply retroactively on collateral review; the Commonwealth appealed the PCRA grant.
The Superior Court vacated the PCRA court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the PCRA court erred by applying Birchfield retroactively and that remand (rather than summary reversal) was required so Parker could preserve other PCRA claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Parker)	Held
Whether the PCRA court erred by retroactively applying Birchfield on collateral review	Birchfield cannot be applied retroactively; Olson controls and precludes relief	Parker relied on Birchfield to challenge admission of blood evidence and obtained a new trial	Court: PCRA court erred; Birchfield cannot be applied retroactively on collateral review (Olson)
Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for not raising a Birchfield-type challenge	IAC claim lacks merit: counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to predict a change in law; Parker cannot show prejudice	Parker argues counsel should have challenged the blood draw under the theory later adopted in Birchfield	Court: IAC claim fails as a matter of law—counsel not ineffective for failing to anticipate Birchfield; no basis to affirm on IAC ground
Whether this Court should reverse the PCRA grant outright or remand for further proceedings	Argues reversal and reinstatement of judgment would be efficient; no factual findings necessary	Parker urges remand so he can receive Rule 907 notice/response, preserve other pro se PCRA claims, and allow counsel to file a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter	Court: Remand required—vacated PCRA order and remanded so Parker can preserve and litigate other potential PCRA issues

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (SCOTUS holding states may not criminally penalize refusal of warrantless blood test)
Commonwealth v. Olson, 218 A.3d 863 (Pa. 2019) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Birchfield does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 2005) (sets three‑part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (establishes the legal framework for IAC claims)
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explains purpose of Rule 907 pre‑dismissal notice and opportunity to amend)
Commonwealth v. Rouse, 191 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the certified record)