Com. v. Perez, J.
456 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- Juan Perez was convicted by jury of second-degree murder, robbery, possession of an instrument of crime, and criminal conspiracy; trial court sentenced him to mandatory life for murder and 6½–13 years concurrent for robbery.
- Direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review concluded in 1997; judgment of sentence became final in October 1997.
- Perez filed a pro se PCRA petition in August 2012 citing Miller v. Alabama and a habeas petition in April 2014 claiming (1) DOC lacked a sentencing order authorizing continued detention and (2) his sentence rested on an unconstitutional/repealed statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 1311(d)).
- Trial court denied the PCRA petition as untimely and denied habeas relief as meritless on January 14, 2016; Perez appealed the habeas denial to the Superior Court.
- Superior Court reviewed whether the certified record and trial-court files provided sufficient authority for detention and whether the illegality claim was properly presented and timely.
- Court affirmed: certified record and court files sufficed to authorize detention; the sentencing-illegality claim was time-barred and belonged in a timely PCRA petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC’s lack of a physical sentencing order invalidates detention | Perez: DOC cannot lawfully detain him because the sentencing order is missing | Commonwealth: Certified judgment and trial-court records independently authorize detention | Court: Denied — certified record and court file provide sufficient authority for continued detention |
| Whether sentence is illegal because based on unconstitutional/repealed statute | Perez: His life sentence depended on unconstitutional § 1311(d) procedures | Commonwealth: Claim must be raised in PCRA and is untimely here | Court: Not reached on merits — claim is untimely and PCRA is the proper vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 837 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for habeas denial is abuse of discretion)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statute requiring provision of sentencing order to DOC does not create prisoner remedy; certified record suffices)
- Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam) (similar prisoner challenges to DOC authority reviewed)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner must plead and prove timeliness exceptions for PCRA jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (court lacks jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petition absent proven exception)