Com. v. Moore
| Citation | 2009 PA Super 134,978 A.2d 988 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1442 WDA 2008&1448 WDA 2008.,1442 WDA 2008&1448 WDA 2008. |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Garrick MOORE, Appellant. |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Nicole D. Sloane, Public Defender, Erie, for appellant.
Erin E. Connelly, Assistant District Attorney, Erie for Commonwealth, appellee.
¶ 1 Garrick Moore ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court order denying his petition for extension of time to file a post-sentence motion. We remand with instructions, and hold that, for reasons of judicial economy and fairness, a defendant who raises ineffective assistance of counsel claims after being found in contempt of a Protection from Abuse order ("PFA") and sentenced to imprisonment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114, is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness of counsel claims, such that the record is adequate to assess the claims on direct appeal, consistent with Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003).
¶ 2 The trial court summarized this case as follows:
On January 15, 2008, ... this Lower Court entered a Final Order Of Protection From Abuse, in which [Appellant] was prohibited from having any contact with the Plaintiff. Subsequently, on July 23, 2008, an Indirect Criminal Contempt Hearing was held before the Lower Court in order to determine whether [Appellant] violated the above stated Protection from Abuse Order on three separate occasions. At the July 23, 2008 Indirect Criminal Contempt Hearing, [Appellant] was represented by Carolyn E. Gold, Esq., from the Erie County Office of the Public Defender. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6114, this Lower Court found [Appellant] guilty of Indirect Criminal Contempt at all three docket numbers, and [Appellant] was sentenced to serve six months of incarceration at each docket number. However, Docket Number 326 of 2008 was to be served concurrent to Docket Number 325 of 2008, while Docket Number 327 of 2008 was to be served consecutive to Docket Number 325 of 2008.
Thereafter, on July 31, 2008, [Appellant], by and through Nicole D. Sloane, Esq. of the Erie County Office of the Public Defender, filed a Petition For Extension of Time To File A Post-Sentencing Motion. In the petition, Attorney Sloane indicates that [Appellant] wrote to the Chief Public Defender asking for an "Appeal" based upon numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Attorney Sloane further indicated that the case must be transferred to outside counsel because the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were based upon the previous representation by Attorney Gold of the Public Defender's Office, and therefore, the Public Defender's Office would have a conflict of interest representing [Appellant] in any subsequent proceedings involving the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, on August 4, 2008, this Lower Court properly denied [Appellant's] Petition For An Extension Of Time To File A Post-Sentencing Motion because this Lower Court lacks the jurisdiction to extend said time limits. On August 7, 2008, [Appellant], by and through Attorney Sloane, filed the instant appeal.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/6/08, at 1-2 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
¶ 3 On August 11, 2008, the trial court entered an order directing Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(b), which Appellant filed on August 14, 2008.
¶ 4 Appellant presents the following question for our review:
Whether the trial court denied Appellant the essential procedural safeguards that attend proceedings where an individual's liberty is at stake including the right to the assistance of counsel and the right to appeal the judgment of sentence?
¶ 5 Appellant explains that he sought an extension of time to file his post-sentence motion because "an extension would have allowed his case to be transferred to an attorney outside of the public defender's office so that ineffective assistance claims could be raised in the post-sentence motion and on appeal." Appellant's Brief at 7. Appellant averred that Appellant's Brief at 10. We agree.
¶ 6 It is initially noteworthy that the request for nunc pro tunc relief is separate and distinct from the merits of the underlying post-sentence motion. Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122, 1128-1129 (Pa.Super.2003) (en banc). Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 720(A)(1) requires that post-sentence motions be filed within ten days of sentencing.1
¶ 7 This Court has addressed the nunc pro tunc filing of post-sentence motions as follows:
To be entitled to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc, a defendant must, within 30 days after the imposition of sentence, demonstrate sufficient cause, i.e., reasons that excuse the late filing ... When the defendant has met this burden and has shown sufficient cause, the trial court must then exercise its discretion in deciding whether to permit the defendant to file the post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc.
Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d at 1128 (emphasis added).
¶ 8 It is well settled that an abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence on the record. Commonwealth v. Barnes, 871 A.2d 812, 819 (Pa.Super.2005).
¶ 9 Here, the trial court abused its discretion when it misapplied the law and stated that it "lacked the jurisdiction to extend the time limitation contained in Rule 720(A)(1)." Trial Court Opinion, 10/6/08, at 2. This statement by the trial court is contrary to the language of Dreves, supra. The trial court clearly had the authority to grant or deny Appellant an extension of time in which to file his post-sentence motion. However, the trial court erred when it averred that it lacked jurisdiction to permit Appellant to file his post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc.
¶ 10 Furthermore, with regard to the underlying merits of Appellant's petition concerning the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, the trial court commented:
[T]he underlying basis of [Appellant's petition for extension of time to file a post-sentence motion] was to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. As a general rule, a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review because the role of appellate counsel may not include raising claims not contained in the record certified for appeal. The record may not be sufficiently developed on direct appeal to permit adequate review of ineffectiveness claims; and appellate courts do not normally consider issues not raised and developed in the court below. Consequently, [Appellant] is not prejudiced by the denial of his Petition For An Extension Of Time To File A Post-Sentencing Motion, because [Appellant] can raise the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a Petition For Post-Conviction Collateral Relief (PCRA), which is the appropriate vehicle to bring such a claim.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/6/08, at 3 (citation omitted).
¶ 11 We agree with the trial court that Appellant may pursue ineffectiveness of counsel claims pursuant to the PCRA. See generally Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002) (). However, Appellant cites the PCRA, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543, and queries whether he would be eligible to seek relief under the PCRA following the trial court's finding of "indirect criminal contempt at three miscellaneous docket numbers." Appellant's Brief at 11.
¶ 12 The PCRA at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543 provides:
§ 9543. Eligibility for relief
(a) General rule. — To be eligible for relief under this subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following:
(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted:
(i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime;
(ii) awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the crime; or
(iii) serving a sentence which must expire before the person may commence serving the disputed sentence.
¶ 13 A criminal contempt proceeding arising under the Protection from Abuse Act is criminal in nature, and the Commonwealth must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Nelson, 456 Pa.Super. 349, 690 A.2d 728 (1997). The sanction of criminal contempt, whether direct or indirect, is an actual criminal conviction. Commonwealth v. Haigh, 874 A.2d 1174, 1177 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 585 Pa. 686, 887 A.2d 1240 (2005). "Where a PFA is involved, an indirect criminal contempt charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of the protective order." Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, II, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa.Super.2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa.Super.2005)). "Thus, as with those accused [of] other crimes, one charged with indirect criminal contempt is to be provided the safeguards which statute and criminal procedures afford." Haigh, 874 A.2d at 1176; Padilla, 885 A.2d at 996-997 (both quoting Commonwealth v. Baker, 722 A.2d 718, 720-721 (Pa.Super.1998) (en banc) (citations omitted)).
¶ 14 In the present case, our review of the record indicates that App...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Mummert
... ... Id. at 12-13. We disagree.We review a trial court's denial of a post-sentence motion for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Moore, 978 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Super. 2009). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Jeter
...to file his "post-sentence motion no later than 30 days after sentencing." Trial Court Order, 8/2/21, at 1; see Commonwealth v. Moore, 978 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding: "[t]he trial court clearly [has] the authority to grant or deny [an a]ppellant an extension of time in which t......
-
Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz
... ... See Commonwealth v. Moore, 978 A.2d 988 (Pa.Super.2009).2. We note it is within our scope of review to consider challenges to the discretionary aspects of an appellant's ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Baldwin
... ... See Commonwealth v. Moore, 978 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that trial court had authority to grant July 31, 2008 motion for extension of time to file ... ...