Commonwealth v. Concordia
97 A.3d 366
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellee (Mario Concordia) pled guilty in 2010 to second-offense DUI and refused blood testing; court imposed a county intermediate punishment (CIP) of 90 days incarceration (with credit) plus five years probation.
- In 2013 this Court decided Commonwealth v. Musau, holding that a defendant convicted under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) who refused testing faced a six-month maximum, so sentences exceeding six months were illegal for that class of offenders.
- Concordia filed a counseled motion to correct an illegal sentence in Sept. 2013 relying on Musau; the trial court held a brief hearing, then terminated Concordia’s CIP on Oct. 18, 2013, citing illegality under Musau.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the order more than 30 days after sentencing (42 Pa.C.S. § 5505) and (2) Concordia’s motion should be treated as an untimely PCRA petition (PCRA one-year time-bar).
- The trial court acknowledged Concordia had completed program requirements and probation-office early-termination forms existed, but explicitly based termination on the sentence being illegal under Musau.
- The Superior Court vacated the termination order and remanded for clarification: the trial court erred by terminating probation on the basis of an untimely legality challenge, but could still terminate CIP permissibly if based on completion of conditions and lack of need for supervision (under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9773).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify CIP >30 days after sentence | Commonwealth: §5505 bars modification after 30 days absent fraud/patent error; court lacked jurisdiction | Concordia: §9773 allows termination of CIP at any time; court had authority | Held: Court cannot modify CIP beyond 30 days based on an untimely legality challenge; but §9773 permits termination at any time for compliance/completion reasons — remand to clarify basis. |
| Whether Concordia’s motion was an untimely PCRA petition challenging sentence legality | Commonwealth: Motion challenges legality and is an untimely PCRA petition barred by one-year limit | Concordia: Motion under §9773 and inherent authority to correct illegal sentences; illegality is correctable anytime | Held: Legality challenges that allege a sentence exceeds statutory maximum must be raised in a timely PCRA petition; the motion was untimely as a PCRA challenge. |
| Whether Musau correctly renders Concordia’s probationary term illegal | Commonwealth: Musau incorrectly decided (argued on appeal) | Concordia: Musau is controlling and makes his probationary term illegal | Held: Court applied Musau as controlling law but noted Musau announced a statutory interpretation decided after sentencing; regardless, trial court erred to the extent termination rested solely on Musau because PCRA time-bar blocked that route. |
| Whether trial court could still terminate CIP absent illegality ground | Commonwealth: Termination cannot be based on untimely legality claim; alternative grounds not addressed below | Concordia: Court indicated compliance with program and probation-office early-termination process | Held: Trial court may lawfully terminate CIP at any time if defendant completed conditions and no longer needs supervision; remanded to determine if termination was warranted on those grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Musau, 69 A.3d 754 (Pa. Super. 2013) (interpreted DUI statutes to impose six-month maximum when defendant refused testing)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (§5505 is jurisdictional; court retains inherent power to correct patent, obvious errors)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA one-year time-bar is jurisdictional; PCRA is sole collateral vehicle for sentence legality claims)
- Commonwealth v. Walters, 814 A.2d 253 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court lacked jurisdiction to alter final order beyond 30 days absent fraud, patent error, or extraordinary circumstances)