Commonwealth v. Haun
32 A.3d 697
| Pa. | 2011Background
- This case addresses whether a concession of guilt per se bars PCRA access for collateral relief.
- PCRA provides for post-conviction review aimed at innocence-related and legality-of-sentence claims under 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
- Lantzy II held that unjustified failure to file a direct appeal constitutes prejudice under 9543(a)(2)(ii) and that the PCRA may be the sole vehicle for certain collateral relief, due to the sole-means provision in 9542.
- Haun (Pa. Superior Court) extended Lantzy II to the 9542 context, ruling that innocence-related concerns can govern PCRA scope and that the petition should not be foreclosed by a guilt admission.
- The Commonwealth challenged the application of Lantzy II to 9542, arguing innocence/illegality focus dictates dismissal when guilt is admitted; Appellee argued to preserve PCRA access consistent with Lantzy II.
- The Superior Court remanded for factual development regarding whether Appellee requested an appeal; the PCRA court had denied relief based on guilt admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a concession of guilt foreclose PCRA relief? | Haun argues 9542's sole-means provision and Lantzy II allow review despite guilt admission. | Commonwealth contends innocence-related language forecloses relief when guilt is admitted. | Concession of guilt does not foreclose PCRA relief. |
| Is 9542's sole-means provision controlling over 9543 prejudice for review scope? | Lantzy II rationale shows sole-means directs review through PCRA, superseding narrow innocence focus. | Commonwealth emphasizes innocence-illegality framing limits review when guilt is admitted. | 9542's sole-means proviso prevails in determining PCRA scope. |
| Should Lantzy II's framework apply to 9542’s innocence-illegality and sole-means provisions? | Lantzy II appropriately reconciles innocence focus with sole-means, extending to 9542 context. | Commonwealth argues Lantzy II does not apply to 9542 as a factual distinction exists here. | Lantzy II framework applies to 9542 context. |
| Is the record lacking a direct appeal request by Appellee dispositive to foreclose relief? | Credibility dispute unresolved; PCRA court failed to resolve whether an appeal request existed. | Commonwealth asserts no appeal request was made. | Record conflicts on appeal request; remand for factual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 712 A.2d 288 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc decision on 9543(a)(2)(ii) prejudice and PCRA scope)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (Lantzy II; reconciled innocence focus with sole-means and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 557 Pa. 358, 733 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1999) (unitary review aimed to channel claims through PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003) (extension of Lantzy II to related review claims)
- Dadario v. Goldberg, 565 Pa. 280, 773 A.2d 126 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA coverage of ineffectiveness claims within scope)
- Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1999) (supporting interpretation of PCRA scope)
- Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (innocence/relief purpose of PCRA)
- Coady v. Vaughn, 564 Pa. 604, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001) (context for appellate rights and PCRA interaction)