Case Information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ^[1] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RAYNARD GRAVES

Appellant No. 3183 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order September 13, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0810851-1994, CP-51-CR-0810861-1994, CP-51-CR-0810871-1994, CP-51-CR-0907281-1994, CP-51-CR-1000861-1994 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* FILED MAY 08, 2017

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: Raynard Graves appeals from the order, entered the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County, denying his post -conviction of corpus. After careful review, we affirm.

In 1995, the trial court sentenced Graves an aggregate term 521/2 105 years' imprisonment, after two separate juries convicted him of multiple offenses stemming from shooting and four robberies.' Graves filed direct appeal to this Court, which affirmed his judgment sentence * Former Justice specially assigned the Superior Court.

' Graves convicted of aggravated assault, Pa.C.S.A. § 2702, criminal conspiracy, Pa.C.S.A. § possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907, robbery, Pa.C.S.A. § violation of the uniform firearms act (VUFA), Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.

in Commonwealth v. Graves, 698 A.2d 1345 (Pa. Super. 1997) (table). In 1998, Graves filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which our Supreme Court denied. Commonwealth v. Graves, 723 A.2d 670 (Pa. 1998) (table). On December 27, 2007, Graves filed a PCRA petition pro se, which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely. This Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Commonwealth v. Graves, 3331 EDA 2008 (Pa. Super. 2009). On August 2012, Graves filed a second PCRA petition pro se, which PCRA also dismissed as untimely. This Court affirmed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Graves, EDA (Pa. Super. 2015). June 15, Graves filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,2 the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County. The Honorable Gary S. Glazer, finding Graves not entitled relief pursuant Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46 ("PCRA"), appropriately treated petition as writ habeas corpus. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d (Pa. 2013) (writ habeas corpus continues to exist only cases there is remedy under the Following review of the pleadings record, Judge Glazer PCRA). dismissed the writ corpus. This type of inquiries into "the lawfulness of the restrain of person

who imprisoned or detained another's custody." "Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam -Webster, n.d. Web. 24 April 2017. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habeas corpus ad subjiciendum>. September Graves filed a timely appeal he

raises the following issue: "Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant's [p]etition for [w]rit [h]abeas [c]orpus since he is [s]entencing [o]rder required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § confined absent a 9764(a)(8)."3 Brief of Appellant, at 3. Specifically, Graves claims that a "certified record - docketing entries and his sentencing transcript - cannot be used his case comprise an 'existent record' that authorizes his incarceration." Id. at Graves' claim is avail.

We agree with the trial that a petition for corpus, rather than a PCRA petition, the proper vehicle for Graves' illegal detention claim. However, "section 9764 neither expressly vests, nor implies vestiture, prisoner of any remedy for deviation from the procedures prescribed within." Id. at 371. In Joseph v. Glunt, A.3d (Pa. Super. 2014), the defendant, like Graves, filed petition for writ of Section 9764 states relevant part:

(a) General rule. --Upon commitment an inmate the custody of the Department of Corrections, sheriff or transporting official shall provide institution's records officer or duty officer . . the following information: .

* * *

(8) A copy of the sentencing order any detainers filed against the inmate which the county has notice. Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8). corpus in he argued his current sentence illegal, pursuant

to section because the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") did not possess written copy his sentencing order. In Joseph, this Court found "none of the provisions section 9764 indicate an affirmative obligation on the part of the DOC to maintain and produce the subsection 9764(a) upon the request of the documents enumerated incarcerated person." Id. at 371. Moreover, the lower court determined that "the existent record authorized [the defendant's] incarceration." Id. at 368. appeal, our Court held that:

The trial court properly reviewed the record and discovered a valid sentencing order contained therein. Moreover, trial court correctly concluded that, even absence a written sentencing order, DOC had continuing authority detain [the defendant]. We discern abuse of discretion the trial court's conclusion.

Id. at 372 (emphasis added).

Moreover, Joseph makes it clear that Graves' argument that the certified record insufficient confirm the legitimacy his sentence is meritless. Id. at 372 (criminal docket provided by trial and transcript of sentencing hearing are sufficient confirm imposition, and legitimacy, of prisoner's sentence). The trial court properly reviewed the record found Judge Glazer entered valid sentence on June 30, Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed Graves' petition.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered. ._,eph D. Seletyn, Es .

J Prothonotary

Date: 5/8/2017