Com. v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 26 September 2001 |
| Citation | 780 A.2d 646,566 Pa. 307 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert BRYANT, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert Brett Dunham, Philadelphia, for Robert Bryant. Michael Wayne Streily, Rebecca Spangler, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Before JOHN P. FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.
We granted allocatur in this matter to address the appropriate manner in which to seek appellate review of a capital case when a court of common pleas denies post-conviction relief of guilt phase issues but grants relief with respect to sentencing.
In 1987, a jury convicted Appellant Robert Bryant (Bryant) of murder in the first degree for the killing of a fellow inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh. Following a sentencing hearing, the same jury sentenced him to death. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 524 Pa. 564, 574 A.2d 590 (1990).
Bryant subsequently filed for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 On March 24, 1998, Senior Judge John W. O'Brien of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (PCRA court) issued an Order dismissing all claims of error relating to Bryant's conviction but granted a new sentencing hearing. Bryant filed a timely appeal with the Superior Court in which he challenged the denial of guilt phase relief. The Commonwealth did not file a cross-appeal regarding the new sentencing hearing. However, at the request of the Commonwealth, the PCRA court issued an Order on June 10, 1998, staying the new sentencing hearing pending final disposition of the appeal of the portion of the March 24, 1998 Order denying guilt-phase relief.
On September 10, 1998, Bryant moved to transfer jurisdiction of his appeal to this Court pursuant to Section 9546(d) of the PCRA. The Superior Court denied the motion of Bryant seeking leave to transfer, and ordered the appeal to continue. Bryant and the Commonwealth both filed briefs, and they submitted the case to a panel of the Superior Court. By Order dated June 10, 1999, the Superior Court issued an Order quashing the appeal and remanding the matter to the trial court for imposition of a new sentence. Bryant filed a timely Application for Reargument, which the Superior Court denied on August 4, 1999.2
This Court has not addressed the issue of the correct procedure for a capital defendant to follow when the PCRA court grants his request for a new sentencing hearing, but denies his request for guilt-phase relief.3 By quashing the appeal in the instant matter, the Superior Court indicated that the trial court must first hold a hearing and impose a new sentence before an appellate court can consider the denial of guilt-phase relief by the PCRA court. For the reasons that follow, we disagree. Rule 1510 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, "An order denying, dismissing, or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for post-conviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal." Furthermore, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b) defines a final order as one that "disposes of all claims of all parties." The Order of the PCRA court fully and finally disposed of all of issues before it. Accordingly, it was a final order that Bryant, the Commonwealth or both could have appealed. Had Bryant not filed a notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of the Order, as required by Pa. R.A.P. 903, he would have waived future review of the decision of the PCRA court.
Because the Order of the PCRA court was appealable, we now consider whether the Superior Court erred in determining that review of the guilt phase issues must wait until the trial court imposes a new sentence. Bryant asserts that the procedure endorsed by the Superior Court prejudices a defendant because it significantly delays the review of the merits of his claim. Moreover, it requires the defendant to endure the anxiety attendant to a capital re-sentencing procedure, although the underlying conviction may be reversed because of the errors raised on appeal. Along with these concerns, which are unique to the defendant, there are also concerns regarding the efficient administration of justice. It would be wasteful of scarce judicial resources to empanel a new sentencing jury,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commonwealth v. Begley
-
Com. v. Collins
...denial of Appellant's guilt phase claims even though the PCRA court vacated Appellant's sentence of death. See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 566 Pa. 307, 780 A.2d 646, 648 (2001) (indicating that review of the PCRA court's decision denying guilt phase relief should precede the imposition of a new......
-
Commonwealth v. Sneed
...not rule on the other allegations of guilt phase error and was required to do so prior to the penalty hearing. See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 566 Pa. 307, 780 A.2d 646 (2001). The Commonwealth countered that in granting a hearing limited to the Batson and penalty phase ineffectiveness claims, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Speight
...sentence as ones ‘in which the death penalty has been imposed,’ thus triggering our review") (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Bryant , 566 Pa. 307, 780 A.2d 646, 648 (2001) ("the legislature did not require that the sentence of death actually be pending in order for this Court to have ju......