Com. v. Schultz, Jr., P.
116 A.3d 1116
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Schultz pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related offenses and was sentenced to 24 months SIP with credit for time served.
- DOC expelled Schultz from the SIP program before the SIP term expired, prompting a revocation proceeding.
- Trial court ordered an additional three months’ SIP after finding violations, set for a revocation hearing.
- On January 27, 2015 this Court vacated part of the revocation order and remanded for lack of jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
- A June 12, 2014 revocation hearing resulted in revocation of Schultz’s SIP and a new aggregate sentence of 52–104 months.
- Schultz timely appealed after the September 4, 2014 sentencing and September 8, 2014 credit entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koerner testimony was legally admissible under the business records exception | Schultz—Koerner testimony supported SIP violations. | Schultz—testimony improper under hearsay rules. | Harmless error; testimony immaterial to revocation issue. |
| Whether the SIP revocation was proper based on hearsay and expulsion facts | Commonwealth—expulsion proved violation of SIP. | Schultz—trial court overstepped by evaluating de novo SIP terms. | Revocation proper; focus was expulsion, not underlying violations. |
| Whether reopening the record after closing arguments violated right to counsel | Commonwealth could recall witness to fill gaps. | Reopening was proper under discretion to admit evidence. | Harmless error; reopening within discretionary bounds. |
| Whether admission of recall evidence violated fair trial principles and counsel's role | Evidence allowed to fill gaps against rights to counsel. | No reversible error given scope of revocation hearing. | No reversible error; discretion to admit evidence superior to rights asserted. |
| Whether sentencing after SIP completion was law of the case error | Appellant argued SIP completion should discharge him. | Law of the case foreclosed relief. | No relief; law of the case governed the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 2 A.3d 559 (Pa. Super. 2010) (SIP framework and expulsion authority; DOC role)
- Commonwealth v. Fischere, 70 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (evidentiary/abuse of discretion standards on trial rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Safka, 95 A.3d 304 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reopenings of record; abuse of discretion review)
- Koken v. Reliance Ins. Co., 893 A.2d 70 (Pa. 2006) (statutory interpretation—mandatory terms)
- In re D.M.W., 102 A.3d 492 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statutory construction approach")
- Commonwealth v. Gacobano, 65 A.3d 416 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Law of the case considerations and appellate restraint)