Com. v. White, V.
Com. v. White v. No. 738 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 11, 2017Background
- In 2006 White was charged with theft by unlawful taking and harassment; a bench warrant issued after he failed to appear.
- White was arrested in New York and extradited to Jefferson County in April 2013; on April 17, 2013 he pleaded guilty to theft and received time served to 2 years less one day, followed by three years plus one day of probation.
- A bench warrant issued in January 2015 for probation violations; White was returned and admitted at a Gagnon II revocation hearing on April 20, 2016 that he violated probation based on a series of new arrests/charges.
- The trial court revoked probation and resentenced White to 2½ to 5 years’ state imprisonment; motion for reconsideration was denied and White appealed.
- White raised multiple challenges on appeal attacking the legality of the original plea/sentence, extradition, statutory limitations, alleged prior satisfaction of fines/restitution, and ineffective assistance of revocation counsel.
- The Superior Court concluded many claims attacked the 2013 sentence but were not timely appealed and therefore were jurisdictionally barred; it affirmed the revocation sentence and deferred ineffectiveness claims to PCRA review.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality/timeliness of original sentence (statute of limitations) | Original arrest/sentence was illegal due to violation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5552(b)(1) and SOL; conviction void | The challenge to the 2013 sentence is untimely because no direct appeal was filed within 30 days | Timeliness: untimely appeal; Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to consider these attacks on the 2013 sentence |
| Whether revocation may be based on an allegedly illegal original sentence | Revocation is improper if underlying sentence was illegal | Revocation is proper; review limited to validity of revocation and available sentencing alternatives | Denied: revocation lawful; court could impose confinement up to statutory maximum given new convictions/arrests |
| Due process/extradition/Interstate Agreement on Detainers claim | Extradition occurred without governor’s warrant and violated IAD; due process violated | Claim attacks prior proceedings and is part of the untimely challenge to the 2013 sentence | Untimely/jurisdictionally barred on direct appeal; not considered on these grounds here |
| Ineffective assistance of revocation counsel | Counsel failed to raise illegality of original sentence as a defense at revocation | Ineffectiveness claims are properly raised in collateral PCRA proceedings, not on direct appeal | Deferred: ineffective-assistance claims not reviewable on direct appeal; remand to PCRA if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due-process requirement of preliminary and final hearings before parole revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2014) (no jurisdiction to entertain untimely appeals absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. MacGregor, 912 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006) (scope of appellate review after probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (permissible reasons for imposing total confinement following revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (defendant’s waiver of counsel to proceed pro se on appeal)