Com. v. Vargas-Torres, H., Jr.
2009 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Hector Vargas-Torres was charged with aggravated harassment by a prisoner for spitting on a correctional officer; he pled guilty to a negotiated reduced charge of simple assault on August 20, 2015.
- The court imposed the agreed sentence of 1 to 2 years imprisonment, to run consecutively to any sentence he was already serving.
- Appellant filed a motion on September 8, 2015 requesting credit for time served from October 21, 2014 to August 20, 2015; he did not seek nunc pro tunc relief and did not frame the motion as PCRA relief.
- The trial court denied the motion after a hearing on November 2, 2015; by then the 30-day appeal period from sentencing had expired.
- Counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief seeking withdrawal, but the Superior Court sua sponte found the appeal untimely and quashed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction over an appeal challenging denial of a motion for credit for time served filed after the 10-day post-sentence motion deadline but before the judgment was "final" | Commonwealth: appeal period controls; untimely post-sentence motions do not toll the appeal period | Vargas-Torres: the motion challenged legality of sentence (non-waivable) and thus should not be subject to timeliness rules | Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction because the post-sentence motion was untimely and did not extend the appeal period under controlling precedent |
| Whether a motion for credit for time served filed one week late should be treated as a post-sentence motion (affecting appeal timelines) | Commonwealth: such motions are post-sentence motions and must meet Rule 720 timeliness | Vargas-Torres: argued Rule 720 timeliness did not apply; provided no supporting authority | Court treated the motion as an untimely post-sentence motion under Capaldi and Dreves; no tolling of appeal period |
| Whether the court could consider the motion on the merits despite untimeliness and whether that cures jurisdictional defect on appeal | Commonwealth: entertaining an untimely motion does not cure lack of jurisdiction for appeal | Vargas-Torres: relied on trial court consideration to argue appeal should be heard | Held that trial-court consideration does not revive appellate jurisdiction; appeal nevertheless quashed |
| If characterized as a PCRA petition, whether counsel properly withdrew under Anders and whether the claim lacked merit | (Not advanced by Commonwealth) | Vargas-Torres implicitly suggested PCRA characterization might preserve review | Court noted even if treated as PCRA, the claim would be frivolous and the denial proper, but primary basis for decision was lack of appellate jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (untimely post-sentence motions do not toll appeal period; one-week-late motion treated as post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court consideration of untimely post-sentence motion does not extend appellate jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc) (appeal period can be extended only by timely post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (motions filed after judgment of sentence may be construed as PCRA petitions)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw when appellate claims are frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (procedural standards for Anders-type appellate counsel brief)