Commonwealth v. Infante
63 A.3d 358
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Pablo Infante was convicted by plea for two pre- Haag DUI offenses (Feb 2008 and Oct 2008) in Philadelphia Municipal Court; 2009 Haag decision later held recidivist sentencing requires prior conviction before subsequent offense; probation for Oct 2008 DUI violated repeatedly leading to revocation and re-sentencing in 2011; original 2009 sentence deemed illegal due to Haag-based interpretation but not timely challenged; December 19, 2011 revocation sentence imposed 6-23% months; appellant petitioned for writ of certiorari to challenge legality of the sentence; trial court denied relief; appellate court reverses and remands for re-sentencing with credit considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 19, 2011 revocation sentence is illegal | Infante argues Haag applies retroactively to render the revocation sentence illegal | Commonwealth argues original 2009 sentence was illegal but not challenged timely; Haag does not retroactively void the revocation sentence | Sentence vacated and remanded for re-sentencing with proper Haag application |
| Whether the original 2009 sentence was illegal under Haag | Haag retroactively invalidates the 2009 sentence | Original challenge time-barred; Haag affects only later sentencing | Original sentence legality deemed untimely challenged; however revocation sentence still illegal and remanded |
| Proper scope of review after probation revocation | Review must assess legality of the revocation sentence, not collateral challenges to the underlying conviction | Court can correct illegal revocation sentence | Court may correct illegal revocation sentence and remand for re-sentencing |
| Credit for time served at re-sentencing | Credit should reflect time served on the offense | Credit decisions governed by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760 and Crump; time served on probation may be credited if warranted | Remand with credit determination consistent with Crump and § 9760 |
| Effect of plea agreement on post-revocation sentence | Negotiated plea limits authority at re-sentencing | Sentencing after revocation can exceed original plea limits if legally permitted | Discretion of court upon revocation to impose sentence within Sentencing Code; must vacate illegal revocation sentence and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Haag, 603 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2009) (interprets 3806 as requiring prior conviction before second DUI for recidivist sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 570 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Super. 1990) (legality of sentence review and PCRA context guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA jurisdiction and timeliness considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (timeliness and collateral review limitations)
- Commonwealth v. Catt, 994 A.2d 1158 (Pa. Super. 2010) (interpretation of 3806 and recidivist sentencing framework)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (credit for time served and sentencing after revocation guidance)