Commonwealth v. Grove
170 A.3d 1127
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Grove shot a neighbor’s dog and was charged with cruelty to animals and, separately, unlawful possession of a firearm because a 1978 criminal trespass conviction later became an "enumerated offense" under the 1995 amendment to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105.
- The firearms charge proceeded to a bench trial; Grove was convicted and sentenced (5–10 years). He later pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and received a consecutive term.
- Grove raised pretrial and direct-appeal challenges arguing retroactivity/ex post facto, due process (lack of notice of the 1995 amendment), Second Amendment and other constitutional claims; the Superior Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal and the Supreme Court denied allowance.
- Grove filed a PCRA petition alleging (inter alia) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to raise several defenses (statutory interpretation, equal protection, affirmative defenses under § 6105(a)(2)(i), prior-record-score challenge) and claiming the trial judge was biased because of alleged ex parte communications with prosecutors and activists.
- The PCRA court granted relief only as to an improperly calculated prior-record score (ordering resentencing) but denied the remaining claims; Grove appealed the denials (and the PCRA order was re-entered and consolidated on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grove) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Whether counsel was ineffective for conceding Grove’s 1978 trespass was an "enumerated offense" under § 6105(b) | The 1995 amendment intended to bar only second-degree trespass as defined post-1978 (i.e., breaking into buildings); Grove’s pre-1978 trespass was not the same conduct and should not disqualify him | Statute looks to the grading of the prior conviction when committed; Grove’s 1978 trespass was a second-degree felony then and thus disqualifies him | Court held § 6105 unambiguous: conviction is measured by law at time of conviction; claim meritless, no ineffectiveness |
| II. Whether counsel was ineffective for not raising Equal Protection challenge | Treating pre-1978 trespass convictions differently from post-1978 convictions creates an age-like/class distinction infringing fundamental rights (bear arms) | No unlawful classification: § 6105 applies uniformly to all convicted of enumerated offenses; differences result from ordinary temporal effect of legislative change and survive rational-basis (or intermediate) scrutiny | Equal protection claim lacks merit; counsel not ineffective |
| III. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to assert the § 6105(a)(2)(i) affirmative defense (60-day disposal period) | Grove lacked notice and thus had no reasonable opportunity to sell/transfer firearms after 1995; alternatively, there was no date of "imposition of the disability" because conviction predated the amendment | Date of imposition is the effective date the prior conviction became enumerated (Oct. 11, 1995); Grove had 60 days but did not act; ignorance of law is not a defense | Defense unavailable; underlying claim meritless; counsel not ineffective |
| IV. Whether PCRA court erred by not holding more evidentiary hearings on alleged ex parte communications and denying relief for lack of an impartial tribunal | Ex parte communications between judge and prosecutors/activists compromised impartiality and require reversal or an evidentiary hearing without prejudice showing | Record contained discovery and hearings; Grove did not identify how communications influenced rulings other than sentencing; absent evidence of influence, ex parte contacts do not require automatic reversal; sentencing claim rendered moot by resentencing order | Court did not abuse discretion; claim moot as to sentencing and otherwise meritless without proof of influence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 780 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA order granting resentencing but denying other relief can be final for appeal purposes)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (prior-conviction inquiry looks to law and sentencing exposure at time of the prior conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Gaines, 127 A.3d 15 (Pa. Super. 2015) (divided en banc discussion on finality of partial PCRA orders granting resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2016) (treating a PCRA order granting resentencing and denying other relief as final)
- Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003) (legislative restrictions on felons’ firearm possession are rationally related to public-safety objectives)