114 A.3d 865
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- In Feb 2010 Officer Lauver pursued Jose Alejandro Stultz for driving the wrong way on a one‑way street; Stultz failed to stop immediately, drove at high speed, and was later stopped at a red light. Officer smelled alcohol, administered field sobriety tests, and blood testing showed BAC .134. A vehicle search revealed drugs; drug charges later withdrawn after suppression.
- Charges: felony fleeing/attempting to elude (graded felony because committed while DUI), two DUI counts, and several summary traffic offenses. Trial resulted in convictions for fleeing (1–5 years) and DUI (concurrent shorter term); other DUI merged.
- Stultz filed post‑sentence motions and a direct appeal; this Court affirmed on direct appeal. He then filed a timely PCRA petition raising subject‑matter jurisdiction, multiple ineffective‑assistance claims, alleged illegal sentence, and a due‑process claim about briefing time; PCRA court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- On PCRA review Stultz conceded he already completed his DUI sentence so claims solely affecting DUI convictions were ineligible for PCRA relief.
- The PCRA court rejected all of Stultz’s novel constitutional challenges to Pennsylvania criminal statutes, the Crimes Code and Motor Vehicle Code, rulemaking by the judiciary, alleged lack of enacting clauses, and his ineffective‑assistance and sentencing/due‑process claims; this appeal followed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stultz) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction of trial court | 1968 Pa. Constitution (no general savings clause) and other constitutional defects (no express grant to enact crimes; courts lack authority to promulgate rules; statutes lack enacting clause) rendered criminal statutes void and trial court lacked jurisdiction | Pennsylvania constitution amendments did not abrogate prior statutes; legislature has plenary state lawmaking power absent express prohibition; Pa. Const. authorizes Supreme Court to promulgate procedural rules; official codification contains enacting clauses | Claims meritless and frivolous; court had jurisdiction and statutes valid; enacting clauses exist in official codes |
| Ineffective assistance — preliminary hearing counsel failed to object to allegedly leading question | Failure to object allowed false evidence proving willful eluding; prejudiced preliminary hearing outcome | The question was not leading; defects in preliminary hearing do not show prejudice after trial conviction; counsel not ineffective for meritless objection | Denied — no arguable merit or prejudice; no ineffective assistance |
| Ineffective assistance — trial counsel strategy & discovery handling (not seeking continuance; challenged stop not arrest; no expert on BAC; failure to raise Miranda for field sobriety tests) | Counsel should have sought continuance/additional suppression hearing for late discovery, attacked arrest rather than stop, hired toxicology expert, and asserted Miranda violation | Stop was lawful (wrong‑way driving, speeding, traffic violations); probable cause supported arrest for fleeing; DUI sentence already served so PCRA relief unavailable as to DUI; field sobriety evidence not essential given BAC over limit | Denied — counsel’s choices reasonable or claims ineligible; no prejudice shown |
| Illegal sentence / due process re: sentencing order | Sentence terms and use of phrase "total confinement" vs "imprisonment" ambiguous; one‑to‑five year term is indefinite; sentencing order failed to cite statutory authority; insufficient time to respond to Commonwealth brief denied due process | "Total confinement" plainly includes imprisonment; sentencing statutes permit definite min/max ranges (not flat terms); sentencing court had statutory authority regardless of citation; no entitlement to reply period in PCRA rule; Appellant received evidentiary hearing | Denied — sentence lawful and within statutory authority; due process satisfied; PCRA court properly disposed of petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 64 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2012) (direct‑appeal opinion affirming convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Bangs, 393 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 1978) (discussion of saving clauses in constitutional amendments)
- County of Allegheny v. Gibson's Son & Co., 90 Pa. 397 (Pa. 1879) (principle that constitutional amendment does not automatically abrogate prior laws)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 568 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 1989) (preliminary hearing defects do not necessarily show prejudice after trial conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Walton, 397 A.2d 1179 (Pa. 1979) (sentencing authority exists even if trial court did not cite correct statute; waiver principles)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements of PCRA ineffective‑assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005) (ineffectiveness claims may fail where issues were previously litigated)