Commonwealth v. Plunkett
Decision Date | 02 December 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 2271 EDA 2015,2271 EDA 2015 |
Citation | 151 A.3d 1108 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Chris PLUNKETT, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Janis Smarro, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Chris Plunkett appeals from the order entered June 19, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying him relief on his petition filed pursuant to the Post–Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq . The PCRA court reviewed the substance of Plunkett's claim and denied him relief based on lack of merit.1 However, because he is no longer serving the sentence associated with this petition, Plunkett has lost his standing to seek relief. Accordingly, we affirm, albeit on different grounds.
Briefly, on September 21, 2010, Plunkett was found guilty of theft by deception, a third-degree felony, at a non-jury trial. On November 30, 2010, he was sentenced to four years of probation and to pay restitution. His direct appeal afforded him no relief. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on August 29, 2013. Plunkett timely filed the instant PCRA petition on December 11, 2013. On November 12, 2014, Plunkett's probation was terminated. However, on December 10, 2014, that order was vacated due to a then pending violation of probation. Specifically, he had failed to complete restitution payments. Also on December 10, 2014, Plunkett received an additional one year of probation. A hearing on Plunkett's PCRA petition was held on March 26, 2015, and the petition was denied on June 19, 2015. On July 7, 2015, Plunkett filed his notice of appeal regarding the denial of his PCRA petition. On January 21, 2016, having fully paid restitution, Plunkett's probationary sentence was terminated by order of Judge Robert P. Coleman. See Docket. The certified record was then transmitted to our Court on March 22, 2016.
The statutory requirements for eligibility for post-conviction collateral relief are set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543, which states, in relevant part:
42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i).
Case law has strictly interpreted the requirement that the petitioner be currently serving a sentence for the crime to be eligible for relief.
Here, the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his sentence is required by the plain language of the statute. To be eligible for relief a petitioner must be currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole. To grant relief at a time when appellant is not currently serving such a sentence would be to ignore the language of the statute.
Commonwealth v. Ahlborn , 548 Pa. 544,699 A.2d 718, 720 (1997) (emphasis in original).2
The general proposition that a petitioner must be currently serving the sentence for the crime has been applied in numerous PCRA cases. See Commonwealth v. Turner , 622 Pa. 318, 80 A.3d 754 (2013) ; Commonwealth v. Stultz , 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) ; Commonwealth v. Williams , 977 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2009) ; Commonwealth v. Pagan , 864 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) ; and Commonwealth v. Hayes , 408 Pa.Super. 68, 596 A.2d 195 (1991) (en banc ). All of these cases differ from the instant case in that, similar to Ahlborn , the petitioner had served the sentence prior to any PCRA hearing or order disposing of the PCRA petition. Here, Plunkett completed his sentence after the PCRA hearing and order denying him relief, as well as after filing his notice of appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the certified record to this Court. Our review of case law leads us to conclude this difference does not negate the applicability of the statutory language of Section 9543(a)(1)(i) to this case.
Additionally, we note that in Ahlborn , our Supreme Court framed the question before it as follows: "At issue is whether one who has filed a PCRA petition while serving a sentence of imprisonment remains eligible for relief in the event that, prior to any final adjudication of the petition, he is released from custody." Id . at 719. The term "final adjudication", although not defined in the opinion, implies the petitioner must be serving the relevant sentence throughout the PCRA process, including any appeals. We also note that had the Supreme Court intended to limit the scope of the question before it, it could have explicitly done so, but it did not.3 We therefore believe there is, at minimum, a strong inference in Ahlborn that the section 9543(a)(1)(i) requirement applies throughout the appellate process.
Accordingly, the denial of relief to a petitioner who was no longer serving a sentence, even when the PCRA process had begun in a timely manner, was not constitutionally infirm. Turner stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Cardenas-Torres
... ... To grant relief at a time when appellant is not currently serving such a sentence would be to ignore the language of the statute. Commonwealth v. Ahlborn , 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997) (emphasis in original). Commonwealth v. Plunkett , 151 A.3d 1108, 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (emphasis in original). Consequently, courts lose jurisdiction over matters when a defendant's sentence expires. See Commonwealth v. Turner , 80 A.3d 754, 769 (Pa. 2013)In addressing Appellant's claim, we are guided by Commonwealth v. Descardes , 136 A.3d 493 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Cardenas-Torres
...for relief under the PCRA because he completed his sentence even though he raised a Padilla claim. We find this Court's decision in Plunkett dispositive the present matter. There, the defendant was on probation at the time he filed his PCRA petition. Plunkett, 151 A.3d at 1109. The defendan......
-
Commonwealth v. Wenhold
...the language of the statute. Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997) (emphasis in original). Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108, 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (emphasis in original). Consequently, courts lose jurisdiction over matters when a defendant's sentence expires. See Com......
-
Commonwealth v. Plasencia
... ... Ahlhorn, 699 A.2d 718 720 (Pa. 1997) (the language of 9543 requires the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his sentence). "Petitioner must be serving the relevant sentence throughout the PCRA process, including any appeals." Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108, 1110 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Relief denied where Defendant was serving sentence when PCRA court's order issued, but sentence terminated prior to resolution of his appeal). Here, Defendant entered a guilty plea to receiving stolen property on June 12, 2017 and was sentenced on July 18, ... ...