Commonwealth v. Duffy
143 A.3d 940
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Brian A. Duffy pled guilty in April 2012 to DUI and a related licensing offense based on a July 10, 2011 arrest; sentencing was delayed after a bench warrant and ultimately imposed August 23, 2012: 1–3 years.
- Duffy was paroled in August 2013 after serving the minimum; a year later his parole officer filed violation charges for failing to report, traveling to Florida without permission, and using/possessing methamphetamine.
- Duffy became a fugitive, was arrested in South Carolina, extradited in February 2015, and a parole revocation hearing was held April 2, 2015; the court found a parole violation and ordered recommitment to serve the balance of the original sentence without re-parole.
- The court orally advised Duffy on April 2, 2015 of his right to file a motion to modify sentence within 10 days and to appeal within 30 days; a sentencing order was not docketed until April 7, 2015.
- Duffy filed a motion for reconsideration (denied April 13, 2015) and filed this appeal on May 6, 2015; the Commonwealth moved to quash as untimely because the 30-day appeal period runs from the date sentence is pronounced, not docketing.
- The Superior Court concluded the appeal was untimely and quashed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 30-day appeal period run after parole revocation — date of oral pronouncement or docketing of the sentence? | (Commonwealth) Appeal period begins on date sentence is pronounced; docketing is ministerial. | (Duffy) Appeal period should run from docketing date (April 7), making his May 6 appeal timely. | The court held the period runs from pronouncement (April 2); appeal filed May 6 was untimely and jurisdictionally defective. |
| Does filing a motion to modify sentence toll the 30-day appeal period after parole revocation? | (Commonwealth) It does not toll the 30-day appeal period under Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(E). | (Duffy) Argued consequences of motion practice might affect timeliness. | The court held Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(E) explicitly provides the 10-day motion period does not toll the 30-day appeal period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (timeliness of appeal may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (post-sentence motion and appeal periods run from pronouncement of sentence, not docketing)
- Commonwealth v. Nahavandian, 954 A.2d 625 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appeal untimely where post-sentence motion filed more than 10 days after pronouncement)
- Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (filing motion to modify does not extend the 30-day appeal period after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (timeliness can be raised sua sponte where post-sentence motion untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Anders, 699 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (date of sentencing determined by pronouncement for rule computations)
- Commonwealth v. Hague, 840 A.2d 1018 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (importance of allocution tied to pronouncement of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 721 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (treatment of revocation/appeal timing)