Com. v. Savage, D.
Com. v. Savage, D. No. 3838 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Police surveilled a Dunkin’ Donuts on a tip that Donald Savage would deliver crack cocaine; Savage was stopped and officers found ~28 grams of cocaine and $3,791 on his person.
- After arrest Savage volunteered cooperation, gave officers keys to an apartment at 7701 Lindbergh Blvd; officers entered, saw cocaine in plain view, obtained a warrant, and seized over 180 grams of cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and $5,210.30.
- A preliminary hearing judge found a prima facie case of possession with intent to deliver (PWID); the judge declined to specify particularity as to weight.
- A jury convicted Savage of PWID for both the drugs on his person and those seized from the apartment; he was sentenced to 7–14 years plus 18 months probation.
- Savage’s direct appeal was denied; he filed a PCRA petition alleging (1) he was convicted of drugs not bound over at prelim and (2) his mandatory minimum sentence violated Alleyne; he also sought discovery and a hearing regarding allegedly corrupt officers.
- The PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed, finding issues waived or without merit and that discovery/hearing were not warranted absent exceptional circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Savage's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction included drugs not bound over at preliminary hearing | Savage: prelim judge limited bind‑over to drugs on his person, so he couldn’t be tried/convicted for apartment drugs | Commonwealth: prelim judge found prima facie PWID and did not limit particularity; issue was not raised at trial or on direct appeal | Waived for failure to develop argument and for not raising at trial/direct appeal; no relief granted |
| Whether mandatory minimum sentence violated Alleyne | Savage: sentencing facts increasing mandatory minimum required jury finding under Alleyne | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Denied — Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review (no relief) |
| Whether PCRA court abused discretion by denying discovery into officers (Spicer, Reynolds) | Savage: prosecutor’s withdrawal of prosecutions against those officers in other cases suggests potential exculpatory/Brady material | Commonwealth/PCRA court: officers had limited roles (Reynolds present but not a witness; Spicer only testified as expert) — mere speculation insufficient for discovery | Denied — no exceptional circumstances shown; speculation alone insufficient |
| Whether PCRA court erred in refusing an evidentiary hearing | Savage: alleged existence of exculpatory evidence warrants hearing | Commonwealth/PCRA court: record shows limited officer involvement; no genuine issue of material fact | Denied — no hearing required where no material factual dispute and speculation won’t justify further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes Miranda warning requirement)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Frey, 41 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2012) (post‑conviction discovery requires exceptional circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing Alleyne’s holding on mandatory minimums)
- Commonwealth v. Nieves, 876 A.2d 423 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prima facie burden at preliminary hearing)