Com. v. Thompson, D., Com. v. Thompson, D. No. 1325 MDA 2016

Appellant Deandre Tremain Thompson was charged in 2012 with sexually abusing two minors; the alleged abuse occurred before his 2008 incarceration while he babysat the children.
The Commonwealth acknowledged Thompson was never physically arrested but asserted he was properly served with a summons; Thompson disputed proper service.
Thompson filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in July 2014 challenging lack of arrest and defective service; the trial court concluded the challenge was untimely under Pa.R.Crim.P. 109 and not prejudicial, and denied relief.
After a jury trial in which Thompson proceeded pro se with standby counsel, he was convicted, sentenced in November 2015 to an aggregate term of 66 to 174 years, and adjudicated an SVP; he did not file a direct appeal.
In April 2016 Thompson filed another pro se habeas petition raising the same service/arrest defects; the trial court allowed him to proceed pro se and denied the petition as raising no new issues previously adjudicated.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding habeas relief improper where the claim could have been raised on direct appeal or under the PCRA and Thompson failed to appeal his judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defective service of a summons or absence of arrest invalidates the prosecution and entitles Thompson to habeas relief	Thompson: He was never arrested and summons was not properly served, so prosecution is defective	Commonwealth: Service was by summons under Pa.R.Crim.P. 511; regardless, defects do not warrant relief because Rule 109 requires timely challenge and lack of prejudice	Court: Dismissed — claim untimely raised and not shown prejudicial; relief not available via habeas because remedy was direct appeal/PCRA
Whether habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle after conviction to raise the service/ar arrest defects	Thompson: Reasserted defects via habeas post-conviction	Commonwealth/Trial Court: Habeas is extraordinary; PCRA/direct appeal are proper remedies for such claims	Court: Habeas inappropriate where claim could have been raised on direct appeal; because Thompson failed to timely appeal, habeas relief denied

Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedural framework for permitting defendant to proceed pro se)
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the exclusive means for post-conviction relief)
West v. Commonwealth, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA subsumes collateral relief, including habeas, when a PCRA remedy exists)
Masker v. Commonwealth, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2011) (claims outside PCRA eligibility may be raised by habeas)
Judge v. Commonwealth, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007) (limits on extending PCRA cognizable claims consistent with statute's purposes)
DiVentura v. Commonwealth, 734 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 1999) (habeas is extraordinary; unavailable when issues could be addressed on appeal or by post-conviction proceedings)
McNeil v. Commonwealth, 665 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 1995) (same principle regarding availability of habeas relief)
McCulligan v. Commonwealth, 905 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate court may affirm trial court on any basis)