Commonwealth v. Heredia
97 A.3d 392
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Miguel Heredia pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and criminal conspiracy on September 17, 2009.
- On December 7, 2009, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 4–8 years, followed by 5 years of probation, and granted credit for time served in the sentencing order.
- Appellant did not file a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence.
- On January 18, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel amended it on August 2, 2012; the court dismissed the petition on March 28, 2013, after notice under Rule 907.
- Appellant argued the DOC did not award time credit as ordered by the sentencing order, relying on a DC-300B commitment form that stated zero days credit, contrary to the sentencing order.
- The majority held the PCRA petition was not cognizable and affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal; the concurrence disagreed on the proper vehicle to seek relief due to inconsistencies between the sentencing and commitment forms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA is the proper vehicle for a credit-for-time-served challenge. | Heredia (PCRA petitioner) argues for relief to enforce the sentencing credit via the DOC. | Commonwealth argues the claim is administrative, not cognizable under the PCRA. | PCRA not cognizable; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa.Super.2013) (PCRA standards; cognizability reviewed)
- Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa.Super.2011) (PCRA contemplates challenges to conviction or sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 386 Pa. Super. 534 (Pa.Super.1989) (time-credit challenge methods; DOC computation vs. sentence legality)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 972 A.2d 125 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (commitment form inconsistencies; jurisdictional venue considerations)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Powell v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 14 A.3d 912 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (where petitioner seeks to compel DOC to carry out sentence; proper court)
- Oakman v. Dep’t of Corr., 903 A.2d 106 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (DOC bound to follow court order granting credit)