Joseph v. Glunt
96 A.3d 365
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Woodens was convicted at trial of first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, carrying a firearm without a license, and false identification, with a life sentence and concurrent terms for the other counts.
- Appellate history includes direct-appeal affirmation in 2011 and PCRA petition denied in 2013; petition details not at issue here.
- In 2013 Woodens filed a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum petition in state court contending the sentence was illegal because the DOC lacked a written sentencing order.
- DOC Open Records responses showed no written sentencing order; Office of Open Records denied relief on that basis (Final Determination, 3/11/2013).
- Trial court dismissed the habeas petition May 14, 2013, concluding a transcript or sentencing order existed and authorized detention under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8).
- Woodens appealed; this Court treated the matter as habeas corpus and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the writ was properly dismissed | Woodens argues via habeas relief that his sentence is illegal due to lack of a written order. | Commonwealth contends § 9764(a)(8) does not create a habeas remedy and records suffice. | Dismissal affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether absence of a written sentencing order renders detention unlawful | Woodens claims 9764(a)(8) requires a written order to authorize detention. | Commonwealth argues the sentencing record and docket suffice to support detention even without a formal written order. | Detention upheld; record evidence supports sentencing authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Penna. Dept. of Corr., 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam recognizing habeas corpus for illegal sentences when DOC cannot produce written order)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 413 Pa. Super. 583, 605 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1992) (habeas corpus limited to detention under criminal process; test of legality)
- Commonwealth v. McNeil, 445 Pa. Super. 526, 665 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 1995) (habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy; exhaustion required)
- Commonwealth v. Spencer v. Ashe, 364 Pa. 442, 71 A.2d 799 (Pa. 1950) (presumption of regularity under settled judgment)
- Commonwealth v. DeSimone v. Cavell, 185 Pa. Super. 131, 138 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 1958) (habeas corpus limits and purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Hoch v. Banmiller, 186 Pa. Super. 57, 140 A.2d 625 (Pa. Super. 1958) (principles on regularity of judgments and habeas relief)
- Commonwealth v. Hodge, 246 Pa. Super. 71, 369 A.2d 815 (Pa. Super. 1977) (oral sentencing alone not part of sentence when not incorporated in written judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 229 Pa. Super. 269, 324 A.2d 538 (Pa. Super. 1974) (oral sentence not part of the judgment when written judgment differs)
- Lara, Inc. v. Dorney Park Coaster Co., Inc., 369 Pa. Super. 27, 534 A.2d 1062 (Pa. Super. 1987) (jurisdictional discretion to retain or transfer appeals)