Com. v. Ritter, W.
3333 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Ritter was convicted after engaging in sexually explicit online communications with an undercover detective posing as a 15‑year‑old; he was sentenced October 26, 2011 to 18–66 months’ imprisonment.
- The Commonwealth discovered and sought to introduce records of Ritter’s prior arrests in New York internet stings; those records were initially unsealed and provided to the Commonwealth and admitted at a pretrial hearing.
- After the New York appellate court later vacated the unsealing order, Ritter moved for a new trial; the Pennsylvania trial court denied relief and Ritter’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Ritter filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (April 6, 2015) challenging admission of the New York records and asserting New York rulings entitled him to relief; the PCRA court initially denied relief without Rule 907 notice, prompting a remand.
- After remand the PCRA court provided Rule 907 notice, Ritter responded, and the court dismissed the PCRA petition on October 6, 2016; on appeal the Superior Court held Ritter was ineligible for PCRA relief because his sentence expired April 26, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Ritter's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ritter is eligible for PCRA relief when his sentence expired during appeal | Ritter argued his PCRA petition was timely and raised meritorious claims based on New York rulings and sealed records | Commonwealth argued PCRA relief requires the petitioner be currently serving a sentence; Ritter’s sentence expired, rendering him ineligible | Held: Petr is ineligible for PCRA relief because he was not serving a sentence at time of final resolution; affirm dismissal |
| Whether New York unsealing/vacatur barred Commonwealth from using those records in PA trial | Ritter contended New York orders (sealing or preclusion) should receive full faith and credit and preclude PA use | Commonwealth maintained records were unsealed when produced and admissible; trial court properly admitted them | Held: On direct appeal, admission was upheld because records were unsealed when provided; PCRA court considered merits but ultimate disposition rested on ineligibility |
| Whether PCRA court procedurally erred by dismissing without Rule 907 notice originally | Ritter claimed failure to give Rule 907 notice warranted remand | Commonwealth and PCRA court agreed remand was proper | Held: Superior Court remanded for Rule 907 compliance; later proceedings cured procedural defect |
| Whether appellate precedents require dismissal despite PCRA court addressing merits | Ritter argued merits could be considered even if sentence expired | Commonwealth cited statutory requirement and controlling case law | Held: Statutory requirement that petitioner be ‘‘currently serving’’ controls; court may affirm on any supported grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA petitioner must be currently serving sentence to be eligible)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (no due‑process right to collateral review absent a protected liberty interest)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA ineligibility where sentence completed)
- Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court may affirm PCRA disposition on any supported ground)
- Commonwealth v. Ritter, 91 A.3d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2013) (direct‑appeal decision upholding admission of New York records)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (right to proceed pro se and requirements for waiver of counsel)