Commonwealth v. Masker
34 A.3d 841
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Masker pled guilty April 19, 2007 to involuntary deviant sexual intercourse, incest, two indecent assault counts, and corruption of minors; sentenced August 24, 2007 to 7–20 years; later classified as an SVP.
- Masker filed a PCRA petition; PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing; trial counsel testified he did not recall advising on independent expert evaluation; no independent expert appointment was known to counsel.
- The PCRA court denied relief; Masker appealed contending issues including SVP designation, trial counsel ineffectiveness at sentencing/SVP hearing, and the Amended PCRA merits.
- This Court adopted the Price reasoning and reaffirmed that SVP designation challenges are outside the PCRA’s scope; Padilla distinctions do not alter the outcome.
- The concurring/dissenting opinions discuss whether ineffective assistance claims at SVP hearings can be raised under the PCRA and suggest broader readings of Padilla and Grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of SVP designation under PCRA | Masker argues SVP designation/process is cognizable under PCRA | Masker’s status challenge falls outside PCRA scope per Price | SVP designation/process not cognizable under PCRA |
| Impact of ineffective assistance at SVP hearing | Masker asserts ineffectiveness claims at SVP hearing are cognizable | PCRA governs such claims; Padilla distinctions do not apply | PCRA governs ineffectiveness claims; SVP-related claims cognizable under PCRA in this context |
| Effect of Padilla on PCRA scope | Padilla requires addressing collateral consequences within criminal process | Padilla distinction does not apply to PCRA here | Padilla does not compel a different result in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.2d 988 (Pa.Super.2005) (SVP classification not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Deaner, 779 A.2d 578 (Pa.Super.2001) (modification of sentence for medical reasons not within PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Vega, 754 A.2d 714 (Pa.Super.2000) (Board’s administrative decisions not reviewable under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Comly, 779 A.2d 618 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (rejection of hunting license suspension review under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Leidig, 598 Pa. 211, 956 A.2d 399 (2008) (Megan’s Law registration collateral; cautions on appeal rights)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 560 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (duty to inform about deportation consequences; applicability to PCRA context discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196 (Pa.Super.2009) (SVP status part of sentence; counseling implications)
- Commonwealth v. Haun, - Pa. -, 32 A.3d 697 (2011) (broad interpretation of PCRA scope; Haun on concessions and review)