Commonwealth v. Presley
Decision Date | 17 July 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 927 EDA 2017,927 EDA 2017 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Lynn PRESLEY, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Peter A. Levin, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Lawrence J. Goode, Assistant District Attorney, and Benjamin J. Halle, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Lynn Presley appeals from the order that dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
This Court offered the following summary of the case history in deciding Appellant's direct appeal.
Commonwealth v. Presley , 48 A.3d 482 (Pa.Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum) (citations and footnotes omitted), appeal denied , 616 Pa. 668, 51 A.3d 838 (2012).
In his subsequent nunc pro tunc direct appeal, Appellant sought review of the discretionary aspects of his sentence, contending that it was harsh and excessive and that Judge Meyers Clark did not consider any of the relevant sentencing factors or explain the reasons for the sentence. Id. (unpublished memorandum at 4-5) (citing Appellant's brief). Judge Cohen agreed that resentencing was warranted because the VOP court failed "to give any reasons for imposing the statutory maximum sentence after revoking probation." Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/11, at 11 (citing Commonwealth v. Parlante , 823 A.2d 927 (Pa.Super. 2003) ). The trial court "respectfully recommend[ed] that [Appellant's] sentence be vacated and the matter remanded for imposition of a new sentence." Id. at 8.
This Court declined to grant the relief urged by the trial court, holding instead that Appellant failed to preserve the claims. Specifically, we found that the issues were not initially raised with the VOP court at the December 6, 2006 resentencing hearing or in a post-sentence motion. Presley , supra (unpublished memorandum at 7). Therefore, this Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence, but indicated that its ruling was "without prejudice to his rights under the PCRA to allege trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to file a post-sentence motion." Id. (unpublished memorandum at 8).
Appellant responded by filing the PCRA petition that is the subject of the instant appeal. In his petition, as amended by his counsel who was appointed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C), Appellant claimed that his VOP counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion for reconsideration of sentence. Amended PCRA Petition, 7/21/16, at 9-14. The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant's petition without a hearing. Appellant filed no response, and the PCRA court dismissed the petition by order of March 7, 2017.1
On March 28, 2017, an order directing Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days was filed and served. Counsel did not timely comply by April 18, 2017. On May 4, 2017, counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file the statement, averring therein that he was unable to file the statement because he had been out of the country. Motion for Extension, 5/4/17, at ¶ 2. The PCRA court did not rule upon the motion. Rather, counsel filed a late statement, without leave to do so, on May 11, 2017. In its subsequent Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court suggested that waiver should result from Appellant's failure to timely comply. However, it addressed the merits of Appellant's claim of VOP counsel's ineffectiveness "[i]n the interest of thoroughness." PCRA Court Opinion, 6/27/17, at 6 n.17.
Appellant presents the following questions for this Court's review.
Appellant's brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We first consider whether Appellant has waived review of his claim by failing to timely file a Rule 1925(b) statement as ordered by the PCRA court. By the express terms of Rule 1925, all issues not properly raised in a court-ordered concise statement are waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
Rule 1925 was amended in 2007 to add provisions for remand in certain circumstances. Subsection (c)(3) now provides: "If an appellant in a criminal case was ordered to file a Statement and failed to do so, such that the appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge." Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). An attorney's failure to file and serve a timely 1925(b) statement in a criminal case "is a failure to perfect the appeal, it is presumptively prejudicial and ‘clear’ ineffectiveness." Pa.R.A.P. 1925, Note (citing, inter alia , Commonwealth v. West , 883 A.2d 654, 657 (Pa.Super. 2005) ). Accordingly, in criminal cases, remand, not waiver, results from the late filing of a statement, unless the trial court addressed the issues raised in a late-filed statement.2 In those circumstances, no remand is necessary, and this Court may address the merits of issues. See Commonwealth v. Thompson , 39 A.3d 335, 340 (Pa.Super. 2012).
"The purpose of the PCRA is to provide an action for ‘persons convicted of crimes they did not commit and persons serving illegal sentences’ to obtain relief." Commonwealth v. Haag , 570 Pa. 289, 809 A.2d 271, 284 (2002) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 ). However, "[t]he PCRA system is not part of the criminal proceeding itself, but is, in fact, civil in nature." Id. Consequently, we must decide whether the instant appeal from an order denying PCRA relief is "a criminal case" or a "civil case" for purposes of subsection (c) of the Rule.
While both our Supreme Court and this Court have in published decisions opined about the applicability of the subsection (c)(3) criminal-case remand procedure in a PCRA appeal, the issue was not actually necessary to the holding in either case. In Commonwealth v. Hill , 609 Pa. 410, 16 A.3d 484 (2011), our Supreme Court suggested that, because of the civil nature of PCRA proceedings, the remand procedure of subsection (c)(3) should not apply when it is PCRA counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Carr
...in a criminal case is a failure to perfect the appeal, it is presumptively prejudicial and clear ineffectiveness." Commonwealth v. Presley , 193 A.3d 436, 441 (Pa.Super. 2018). "Accordingly, in criminal cases, remand, not waiver, results from the late filing of a statement, unless the trial......
-
Commonwealth v. Lomax
... ... nine days late, we may proceed with substantive review ... because the plea court addressed the merits of her sentencing ... claim included in her Rule 1925(b) statement in its opinion ... Plea Court Opinion, 9/14/22, 1; see Commonwealth v ... Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 441 (Pa. Super. 2018) ("[I]n ... criminal cases, remand, not waiver, results from the late ... filing of a [Rule 1925(b)] statement, unless the trial court ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Hand, 1359 EDA 2020
...We must determine whether the PCRA court's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Presley , 193 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 650 Pa. 643, 201 A.3d 154 (2019). With the exception of the PCRA court's legal conclusions,......
-
Andrew v. Buskirk, 17-3011
...of parole "is limited only by the maximum sentence" that could have been imposed under the original sentence. Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 445 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018) (citing Commonwealth v. Pasture, 630 107 A.3d 21, 27-28 (Pa. 2014)); see also Pa. R. Crim. P. 708 (governing sentenc......