Com. v. Polite, W.
Com. v. Polite, W. No. 1657 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- In 1991 Willie E. Polite was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for the stabbing death of Viola Yarnell; he received life imprisonment and a concurrent term for the weapon offense.
- Polite pursued multiple direct and collateral appeals and PCRA petitions over many years; his convictions and sentences were repeatedly affirmed and prior PCRA petitions denied.
- In 2013 Polite filed a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum challenging the legality of his detention based on alleged missing written sentencing documentation and related DOC record issues; he later sought to supplement with PCRA-based claims invoking Alleyne/Ciccone.
- The trial court dismissed the habeas petition (treating it under Joseph precedent) and denied supplemental petitions; Polite appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court held the certified record documents Polite’s judgment of sentence, that habeas relief is inappropriate where the judgment is regular and affirmed on appeal, and that Alleyne-based retroactive relief was unavailable because Polite’s conviction was final before Alleyne.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus lies because DOC (or court) lacks a written sentencing order | Polite: DOC’s inability to produce sentencing order makes his detention illegal; habeas lies | Commonwealth: Certified court record confirms judgment; lack of DOC copy doesn’t create habeas relief | Denied — certified record controls; habeas inappropriate where judgment is regular and affirmed |
| Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764 or related statutory provisions give prisoners a remedy for missing sentencing documents | Polite: § 9764 and Joseph support relief; trial court abused discretion by relying on Joseph retroactively | Commonwealth: § 9764 governs inter‑agency record exchange, not a private cause of action; Joseph holds same | Denied — § 9764 does not create a prisoner remedy; Joseph and Travis persuasive rejecting such claims |
| Whether Alleyne (and Ciccone) retroactively invalidates mandatory components of his sentence on collateral review | Polite: Ciccone/Alleyne render his sentence illegal and PCRA remains available | Commonwealth: Polite’s judgment became final before Alleyne; Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Denied — Alleyne does not apply retroactively; PCRA relief unavailable given finality/timeliness rules |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in dismissing the petitions | Polite: Court misapplied law and denied access to challenge statute of murder and sentencing documentation | Commonwealth: Court properly applied Joseph/Dozier; no abuse where certified record confirms sentence | Denied — no abuse of discretion; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam) (absence of DOC copy of sentencing order can be framed as habeas corpus claim in certain contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Joseph, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (treats DOC‑possession claims and analyzes § 9764; holds certified record controls and § 9764 does not create prisoner remedy)
- Commonwealth v. Dozier, 99 A.3d 106 (Pa. Super. 2014) (confirms certified record governs sentencing and rejects relief where certified record documents judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 605 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1992) (explains habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ to test legality of detention and generally not available to collaterally attack affirmed convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (illegal‑sentence questions are not waivable and may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holds Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)