Commonwealth v. Plunkett
151 A.3d 1108
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Chris Plunkett was convicted (non-jury) of third-degree felony theft by deception on Sept. 21, 2010, and sentenced Nov. 30, 2010 to four years probation and restitution.
- Direct appeal denied; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal Aug. 29, 2013. Plunkett filed a timely PCRA petition on Dec. 11, 2013.
- Plunkett’s probation was briefly terminated on Nov. 12, 2014, but reinstated Dec. 10, 2014 due to unpaid restitution and extended one year; hearing on PCRA held Mar. 26, 2015; PCRA petition denied June 19, 2015.
- Plunkett filed a notice of appeal July 7, 2015. He completed restitution and his probation was terminated Jan. 21, 2016 — before the certified record reached the Superior Court.
- The PCRA court considered an ineffective-assistance claim for failing to call character witnesses and denied relief on the merits; the Superior Court affirmed but on the alternative ground that Plunkett was ineligible for PCRA relief after his sentence expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plunkett's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petitioner remains eligible for PCRA relief if the sentence expires after filing but before final appellate resolution | Plunkett argued he filed timely while serving probation and thus remains eligible despite subsequent termination | Commonwealth argued 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i) requires the petitioner to be currently serving a sentence at the time relief is granted/reviewed, so expiration ends eligibility | Held: A petitioner is ineligible for PCRA relief once the sentence has expired; eligibility must exist throughout the process, including appeal — sentence expiration deprives court of authority to grant relief |
| Whether Plunkett suffered ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to call character witnesses | Plunkett alleged prejudice from omission of character witnesses | Commonwealth (and PCRA court) argued evidence of guilt was overwhelming and proposed witnesses’ affidavits would not have produced prejudice | Held: PCRA court found no prejudice on the merits, but Superior Court affirmed on the alternative ground of ineligibility (sentence expired) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (interpreting § 9543(a)(1)(i) to require petitioner be serving sentence to be eligible for PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (due process does not mandate collateral review once sentence has expired; eligibility tied to ongoing liberty interest)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (portion of sentence already expired renders claims tied to that portion ineligible for PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Volk, 138 A.3d 659 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sentence expiration before PCRA resolution, even if delay not petitioner’s fault, bars relief)