Com. v. Schultz, P., Jr.
Com. v. Schultz, P., Jr. No. 313 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Peter J. Schultz, Jr. pled guilty to multiple drug offenses and was sentenced on May 17, 2012 to 24 months in the State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) program, with credit for time served from March 20, 2012.
- On March 5, 2014 the trial court entered an order purporting to extend Schultz’s SIP participation after finding a violation; that order was later found by this Court (Schultz I) to be beyond the court’s jurisdiction and was vacated.
- Despite Schultz I being pending, the trial court on June 12, 2014 revoked Schultz’s SIP and on September 4, 2014 resentenced him to 52–104 months’ incarceration; that sentence was appealed and affirmed by this Court (Schultz II).
- Schultz filed a pro se PCRA petition on August 27, 2015 challenging the September 4, 2014 judgment of sentence, arguing the March 5, 2014 extension was void because his SIP had expired March 20, 2014.
- The PCRA court treated the filing as a PCRA petition, dismissed it under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and Schultz appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding the claim was previously litigated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court had jurisdiction to enter the March 5, 2014 order extending Schultz’s SIP | Schultz: the SIP expired March 20, 2014, so the March 5 extension (and subsequent 52–104 month sentence) was void | Commonwealth: the court lacked jurisdiction for the March 5 order but later regained jurisdiction when the DOC formally expelled Schultz, validating revocation/resentencing | The claim was previously litigated and rejected in Schultz II; PCRA relief denied and order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Treiber v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA orders and deference to credibility findings)
- Henkel v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate review standards and de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Rykard v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review principles cited for scope of review)
- Starr v. Commonwealth, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (a lower court cannot contravene prior appellate decisions)
- Benner v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate affirmance may rest on any correct basis supported by the record)
- Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (claims previously litigated on direct appeal are not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Berry v. Commonwealth, 760 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2000) (previous litigation bar applies even if claim is repackaged)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, 957 A.2d 237 (Pa. 2008) (discussion of what constitutes an "issue" for previous-litigation purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Schultz, 116 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Schultz II) (affirming the September 4, 2014 sentence and rejecting the argument that the SIP had expired)