Com. v. Veni, B.
Com. v. Veni, B. No. 2279 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- Appellant Bryan Veni was convicted after a bench trial of terroristic threats, simple assault, harassment, and conspiracy and sentenced to three years’ probation on January 25, 2013.
- Veni appealed; this Court affirmed. He then filed a PCRA petition on December 11, 2015 alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Veni’s probation was scheduled to expire January 25, 2016; concerned about losing PCRA eligibility, counsel sought to have the sentencing court extend probation so the PCRA could be heard.
- Judge Boylan purportedly issued an oral order around January 26, 2016 extending probation for the purposes of the PCRA proceedings; no written order appears in the record.
- A PCRA evidentiary hearing occurred February 5, 2016; the Commonwealth argued Veni’s probation had expired and thus he was ineligible for PCRA relief. The PCRA court denied relief on the merits on June 16, 2016.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Veni was not eligible for PCRA relief because he was not "currently serving" a sentence when relief was (or ultimately could be) granted; the record shows no enforceable extension of probation beyond the PCRA decision date.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petitioner must be "currently serving" a sentence to be eligible for PCRA relief | Veni argued the sentencing court validly extended his probation (via Judge Boylan’s oral order) so he remained "currently serving" and thus eligible | Commonwealth argued Veni’s probation expired Jan. 25, 2016 and probation was not lawfully extended; therefore Veni was ineligible | Held: PCRA requires petitioner be "currently serving" a sentence; Veni was not serving a sentence when relief was sought/decided because no written/orderly extension appears in record, so he is ineligible |
| Whether an oral, post-expiration judicial pronouncement preserved PCRA jurisdiction | Veni contended the oral order (and counsel’s representations) preserved his probation through disposition | Commonwealth asserted an oral order after expiration, unsupported in the record, cannot create eligibility | Held: Even assuming some oral extension to Feb. 5, 2016, there is no record support for extension through the June 16, 2016 decision; absent being "currently serving," PCRA relief is unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding PCRA relief unavailable when sentence expired before appellate decision)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (discussing statutory requirement that petitioner be currently serving sentence for PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (applying PCRA eligibility requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2009) (applying current-service requirement under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 864 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Hayes, 596 A.2d 195 (Pa. Super. 1991) (en banc) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (noting concerns about PCRA’s effect on short sentences in concurring opinion)
- Commonwealth v. O’Berg, 880 A.2d 597 (Pa. 2005) (dissent discussing limits of PCRA relief for short sentences)