Commonwealth v. Partee
86 A.3d 245
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Partee pleaded nolo contendere in 2007 to indecent assault, corruption of minors, and endangering welfare; rape and incest counts were withdrawn.
- Sentence included six months’ house arrest and four years’ probation; 2010 VOP led to 30–60 month imprisonment on a different count.
- 2011 Partee PCRA petition sought reinstatement of appellate rights; appellate court affirmed May 2012, and related matters were pursued.
- February 2013 Partee petitioned for habeas/enforcement of plea; the Commonwealth treated it as a PCRA petition and 907 notice was issued.
- April 2013 trial court dismissed; Partee challenged, arguing the plea terms included a ten-year Megan’s Law registration rather than lifetime; argued for specific enforcement.
- This Court held the relief sought is not cognizable under the PCRA and that, due to probation breach, the original plea bargain could not be specifically enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was properly treated as a PCRA petition. | Partee contends not a PCRA petition; relief not within PCRA. | Commonwealth treats as PCRA and timeliness is at issue due to SORNA amendments. | Petition not cognizable under PCRA; not subject to PCRA time limits. |
| Whether ten-year Adam Walsh Act registration was an enforceable term of the plea. | Ten-year registration was a bargained term; enforceable under Hainesworth. | Registration term not enforceable if plea breached; not subject to specific enforcement. | Not entitled to specific performance; Hainesworth not controlling; no enforceable ten-year term as pleaded. |
| Effect of probation violation on the enforceability of the plea agreement. | Did not forfeit the bargain; should enforce the plea as bargained. | Probation violation forfeits the benefit of the bargain; resentencing allowed under Wallace. | Probation breach forfeits the bargain; no specific enforcement of the original terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. West, 595 Pa. 483, 938 A.2d 1034 (2007) (due process challenges outside PCRA review; habeas corpus proper avenue)
- Commonwealth v. Judge, 591 Pa. 126, 916 A.2d 511 (2007) (international agreement deportation claim outside PCRA scope)
- Commonwealth v. Parsons, 969 A.2d 1259 (Pa.Super.2009) (revocation of probation and impact on plea bargain)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 582 Pa. 234, 870 A.2d 838 (2005) (probation violation allows resentencing beyond negotiated terms)
- Commonwealth v. Kroh, 440 Pa.Super. 1, 654 A.2d 1168 (1995) (construction of plea terms against the Commonwealth; ambiguities resolved in defendant's favor)
- Commonwealth v. Benner, 853 A.2d 1068 (Pa.Super.2004) (distinguish lifetime registration vs. negotiated non-registration)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc: enforce plea term limiting Megan’s Law registration; totality of circumstances governs)
- Commonwealth v. Tann, 79 A.3d 1130 (Pa.Super.2013) (recognizes lack of enforcement where probation breach occurred)
- Commonwealth v. Deaner, 779 A.2d 578 (Pa.Super.2001) (PCRA not required; jurisdictional review framework)
- Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa.Super.2011) (challenge to SVP classification not a PCRA challenge)