Com. v. Reigle, N.
2122 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Nathan Joseph Reigle’s parole was revoked at a May 7, 2015 hearing held in his absence; the court revoked parole and imposed sentence.
- At the time of the hearing Reigle was incarcerated in a state correctional facility and unrepresented; conflicts counsel previously associated was no longer appointed.
- Reigle filed a pro se "Motion for Parole Revocation Direct Appeal" dated June 5, 2015 (certificate of service), later cured by counsel’s December 1, 2015 notice of appeal; the Court found the pro se filing timely under the prisoner mailbox rule.
- At the revocation hearing the Commonwealth’s sole witness, parole officer Matthew Narcavage, testified that Reigle had been given notice but refused transport; Narcavage’s testimony was based on reports from correctional staff rather than his personal knowledge.
- The trial court relied on that hearsay testimony to conclude Reigle implicitly waived presence; the Superior Court found the record did not establish Reigle knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present or represented.
- The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for further proceedings because the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden to prove Reigle’s absence was voluntary by competent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Reigle's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court has jurisdiction over the appeal | Reigle: pro se filing timely under prisoner mailbox rule | Commonwealth: appeal untimely | Held: Jurisdiction exists; pro se June 5 certificate of service timely under Smith/Jones |
| Whether deprivation of counsel/presence violated due process | Reigle: lacked notice and did not knowingly/voluntarily waive rights | Commonwealth: Reigle refused to appear; notice was given | Held: Due process violation cannot be resolved on record; waiver not established |
| Whether Commonwealth proved defendant’s absence was voluntary | Reigle: Commonwealth must show absence without cause by competent evidence | Commonwealth: parole officer testified defendant refused transport | Held: Officer’s hearsay lacks personal knowledge; insufficient to meet burden |
| Remedy when record cannot establish voluntary waiver | Reigle: remand for hearing with competent proof of notice/waiver | Commonwealth: (no brief filed) implicitly defended hearing result | Held: Vacated sentence and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellee briefing obligations and content)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (timely notice of appeal triggers appellate jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 29 A.3d 393 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prothonotary’s limited power to reject filings)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 78 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2013) (right to be present at critical stages)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 712 A.2d 735 (Pa. 1998) (waiver of presence must be knowing and voluntary)
- Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 683 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1996) (prisoner mailbox rule for timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule applies to all appeals by pro se prisoners)
- Commonwealth v. Faruharson, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1976) (hearsay competent in absence of timely objection)