Commonwealth v. Capaldi
112 A.3d 1242
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant David Joseph Capaldi pleaded guilty and was sentenced May 19, 2014, to 9–23 months for possession with intent to deliver heroin; no jail credit for pretrial time in this case was awarded.
- The trial court noted credit for the pretrial time had been applied to a concurrent sentence in another case.
- Appellant was informed of post-sentence and appellate rights in court and in writing.
- On June 5, 2014 (17 days after sentencing), counsel filed a "Post-Sentence Motion for Relief Nunc Pro Tunc" asserting entitlement to pretrial credit but gave no reasons for the late filing.
- The court scheduled a hearing, denied relief on June 26, 2014, and Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 18, 2014 (60 days after sentencing).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | The late post-sentence motion, labeled nunc pro tunc and acted on by the court, tolled the appeal period | Motion was untimely; no timely request for nunc pro tunc and no express grant by the trial court, so appeal period was not tolled | Appeal untimely; court lacks jurisdiction and appeal is quashed |
| Effect of post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc | The court’s scheduling/hearing on the motion effectively allowed nunc pro tunc relief | A mere title or scheduling does not constitute a request for or an express grant of nunc pro tunc relief | No nunc pro tunc tolling: defendant failed to request relief with reasons; court did not expressly grant it |
| Whether court could decide the motion on merits despite timing | Appellant relied on the court’s merits consideration as sufficient | Commonwealth: merits decision is not a substitute for an express nunc pro tunc order | Trial court’s merits ruling does not substitute for express nunc pro tunc grant; merits consideration insufficient to toll appeal period |
| Counsel’s Anders withdrawal and brief | Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting appeal frivolous and sought to withdraw | Commonwealth did not contest procedural posture | Because appellate court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot reach Anders brief; petition to withdraw is dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate courts must raise untimely-appeal jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (untimely post-sentence motion does not toll appeal period)
- Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for nunc pro tunc post-sentence motions to toll appeal period)
- Witherspoon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 814 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2002) (establishing that scheduling or briefing orders do not constitute an "express grant" of reconsideration)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 846 A.2d 730 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court erred in addressing merits where no express nunc pro tunc grant existed)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (example of a court-operation breakdown that can justify relief)
- Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality-of-sentence claims are reviewable if court has jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (procedural requirements for Anders briefs in Pennsylvania)