Com. v. Treadway, P.
Com. v. Treadway, P. No. 1361 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Peter Allen Treadway was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses, including rape of a child, for repeated sexual abuse of his minor stepdaughter; DNA showed he fathered the victim’s aborted fetus.
- Original sentence (July 13, 2011) was 100 to 200 years; Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated certain sentences as illegal and remanded for resentencing (Jan. 15, 2013).
- After denial of allowance of appeal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the trial court resentenced Treadway on March 7, 2014 to 100 to 200 years; Superior Court affirmed the resentencing.
- Treadway filed pro se post-conviction filings alleging various defects (including a Rule 600 speedy-sentencing claim); the filings were treated as a PCRA petition, counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and sought withdrawal.
- The PCRA court issued the required notice of intent to dismiss, Treadway filed a disorganized pro se response, and the court dismissed the PCRA petition and permitted counsel to withdraw.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, finding most claims waived for inadequate briefing and rejecting the primary speedy-sentencing theory as meritless because Rule 600 governs trial speed, not post-remand sentencing, and Treadway showed no actual prejudice from the delay.
Issues
| Issue | Treadway's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 (speedy trial) to resentencing delay | Rule 600 entitlement to sentencing within 120 days after Superior Court remand; denial violated speedy-trial rights | Rule 600 applies to trial, not to resentencing after appellate remand; any sentencing delay requires proof of actual prejudice | Rejected Treadway’s Rule 600 claim; no prejudice shown, claim fails |
| Applicability of sentencing time limits (Pa.R.Crim.P. 704) after remand | Claimed sentence was untimely under sentencing-time rules | Rule 704 applies to original sentencing after conviction, not to post-remand resentencing; trial court had discretion | Rejected; sentencing time rules do not mandate vacatur on remand absent prejudice |
| Waiver based on inadequate appellate brief and failure to cite the record | Raised multiple grounds (Brady, confrontation, prosecutorial vouching, DNA testing denial, sovereign immunity) in a disorganized brief | Appellate rules require statement of issues, record citations, and coherent argument; pro se status does not excuse compliance | Claims waived for inadequate briefing and lack of record citations |
| Jurisdiction / Native American sovereignty claim | Treadway argued he was Iroquois and subject to treaty laws / sovereign immunity, so court lacked jurisdiction | No legal basis presented; claim inadequately developed and unsupported by authority or record | Rejected and treated as waived; no merits review granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for allowing a defendant to proceed pro se)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal in post-conviction proceedings)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw with a no-merit letter)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of pro se appellant obligations and liberal construction limits)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate briefing requirements and consequences of noncompliance)
- Commonwealth v. Irvin, 134 A.3d 67 (Pa. Super. 2016) (claims lacking detailed discussion and authority may obtain no relief)