J-S06013-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMES MICHAEL DRAUCKER : : Appellant : No. 320 WDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 20, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-24-CR-0000153-2021
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 19, 2026
James Draucker appeals from the order denying his timely-filed petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541-9546. We affirm.
The facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows. On
July 10, 2023, Draucker entered a negotiated guilty plea in Elk County to one
count of driving under the influence (DUI), graded as a second-degree
misdemeanor. Draucker waived the preparation of a pre-sentence
investigation, and therefore the trial court proceeded to sentence him.
Because Draucker had previously pled guilty in Jefferson County to two DUIs
in 2021 and 2023, the court treated the instant conviction as a third DUI
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S06013-26
offense. The court sentenced Draucker to 87 days of time served to 24
months, less one day, and Draucker was immediately paroled. Draucker did
not file a timely post-sentence motion or an appeal.
On November 8, 2023, Draucker filed a pro se “Letter Concerning My
Appeal and Appointed Counsel,” in which he requested new counsel.
According to Draucker, shortly after he entered his plea, he gave trial counsel
a notice of appeal but counsel never acted on his request. By order entered
the next day, the trial court appointed new counsel “to evaluate whether
[Draucker] has a cognizable appellate or PCRA claim and to file any petition
deemed by Counsel to be appropriate.”
Treating Draucker’s letter as a petition for post-conviction relief, PCRA
counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter pursuant
to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On
December 15, 2023, the trial court entered an order that held counsel’s
petition to withdraw in abeyance and granted Draucker thirty days to either
file a motion nunc pro tunc to reinstate his appellate rights or file an amended
PCRA petition.
After being granted an extension of time, PCRA counsel filed another
petition to withdraw. The court held an evidentiary hearing on April 12, 2024.
Ultimately, the PCRA court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw, but granted
-2- J-S06013-26
Draucker an additional sixty days to file a motion to reinstate his direct appeal
rights or a petition for post-conviction relief.
On May 28, 2024, Draucker filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the court
appointed present PCRA counsel. On June 27, 2024, this Court vacated
Draucker’s 2023 Jefferson County DUI sentence for his second offense.
Commonwealth v. Draucker, 323 A.3d 232 (Pa. Super. 2024) (non-
precedential decision). On October 31, 2024, counsel filed an amended PCRA
petition in which Draucker essentially claimed that, because his 2023 Jefferson
County judgment of sentence had been vacated, he no longer had two prior
convictions, and, therefore, the July 2023 sentence he received in Elk County
in this case was now illegal.
Meanwhile, in Jefferson County, Draucker entered a new guilty plea to
the 2023 conviction.
Thereafter, on January 17, 2025, the PCRA court in Elk County held a
hearing on Draucker’s amended PCRA petition. No testimony was taken, but
the court heard argument from counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
court asked for briefs. By order entered February 20, 2025, the PCRA court
denied Draucker’s amended petition. This appeal followed. Both Draucker
and the PCRA court have complied with Appellate Rule 1925.
Draucker raises the following issue on appeal:
I. Whether the [PCRA court] committed an error of law by denying [Draucker’s] prayer for PCRA relief seeking a modification of his DUI sentence when a prior DUI conviction – relied upon for a mandatory sentence in the instant case
-3- J-S06013-26
– was vacated prior to the filing of his PCRA, rendering his sentence illegal.
Draucker’s Brief at 4 (emphasis omitted).
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a petition
under the PCRA is to ascertain whether “the determination of the PCRA court
is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings
in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92
(Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
In support of his claim on appeal, Draucker first asserts that his prior
2021 and 2023 convictions were appropriately counted as prior offenses for
sentencing him for his 2023 Elk County conviction as a third DUI offense.
However, after he filed his PCRA, his 2023 DUI conviction was vacated by this
Court in 2024. According to Draucker, a third offense sentence “would not
have been applicable except for the conviction that was vacated.” Draucker’s
Brief at 10-11 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(3)). Draucker therefore contends
that, “[w]hile the Trial Court did not create any error at the time of sentencing,
presently because it is based upon a vacated conviction, [his] sentence is
illegal and should be modified to reflect a second offense.” Id. at 11.
The PCRA court found no merit to Draucker’s claim. It determined that
the relief requested was not permitted given the clear language of Section
3806, which clearly provides that the sentencing court “shall calculate the
-4- J-S06013-26
number of prior offenses, if any, at the time of sentencing.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
3806. The court explained:
[The PCRA court] does not find any merit as a matter of law and fact in the relief being requested by [Draucker] in [his PCRA petition]. Foremost, the relief being requested by [Draucker] is contrary to [Section] 3806[.]
***
If this court applied [Section] 3806 in the context of now modifying [Draucker’s] sentence, as this is the relief being requested by [him], this court maintains that at time of sentencing modification [Draucker] would now have two prior [DUI] offenses in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania as well as apparently one prior [DUI] offense in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Consequently, if modification would or should occur this court finds that the sentenced entered July 10, 2023 [in Elk County] should be properly modified as of the date of modification to [DUI] 75 Pa.C.S.A. S3802(a)(1), Felony Third Degree, Third or Subsequent Offense, whereby [Draucker] would be subject to undergo imprisonment of not less than ten (10) days and pay a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5000. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3803(a)(3) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3804(a)(3).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S06013-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMES MICHAEL DRAUCKER : : Appellant : No. 320 WDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 20, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-24-CR-0000153-2021
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 19, 2026
James Draucker appeals from the order denying his timely-filed petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541-9546. We affirm.
The facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows. On
July 10, 2023, Draucker entered a negotiated guilty plea in Elk County to one
count of driving under the influence (DUI), graded as a second-degree
misdemeanor. Draucker waived the preparation of a pre-sentence
investigation, and therefore the trial court proceeded to sentence him.
Because Draucker had previously pled guilty in Jefferson County to two DUIs
in 2021 and 2023, the court treated the instant conviction as a third DUI
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S06013-26
offense. The court sentenced Draucker to 87 days of time served to 24
months, less one day, and Draucker was immediately paroled. Draucker did
not file a timely post-sentence motion or an appeal.
On November 8, 2023, Draucker filed a pro se “Letter Concerning My
Appeal and Appointed Counsel,” in which he requested new counsel.
According to Draucker, shortly after he entered his plea, he gave trial counsel
a notice of appeal but counsel never acted on his request. By order entered
the next day, the trial court appointed new counsel “to evaluate whether
[Draucker] has a cognizable appellate or PCRA claim and to file any petition
deemed by Counsel to be appropriate.”
Treating Draucker’s letter as a petition for post-conviction relief, PCRA
counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter pursuant
to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On
December 15, 2023, the trial court entered an order that held counsel’s
petition to withdraw in abeyance and granted Draucker thirty days to either
file a motion nunc pro tunc to reinstate his appellate rights or file an amended
PCRA petition.
After being granted an extension of time, PCRA counsel filed another
petition to withdraw. The court held an evidentiary hearing on April 12, 2024.
Ultimately, the PCRA court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw, but granted
-2- J-S06013-26
Draucker an additional sixty days to file a motion to reinstate his direct appeal
rights or a petition for post-conviction relief.
On May 28, 2024, Draucker filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the court
appointed present PCRA counsel. On June 27, 2024, this Court vacated
Draucker’s 2023 Jefferson County DUI sentence for his second offense.
Commonwealth v. Draucker, 323 A.3d 232 (Pa. Super. 2024) (non-
precedential decision). On October 31, 2024, counsel filed an amended PCRA
petition in which Draucker essentially claimed that, because his 2023 Jefferson
County judgment of sentence had been vacated, he no longer had two prior
convictions, and, therefore, the July 2023 sentence he received in Elk County
in this case was now illegal.
Meanwhile, in Jefferson County, Draucker entered a new guilty plea to
the 2023 conviction.
Thereafter, on January 17, 2025, the PCRA court in Elk County held a
hearing on Draucker’s amended PCRA petition. No testimony was taken, but
the court heard argument from counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
court asked for briefs. By order entered February 20, 2025, the PCRA court
denied Draucker’s amended petition. This appeal followed. Both Draucker
and the PCRA court have complied with Appellate Rule 1925.
Draucker raises the following issue on appeal:
I. Whether the [PCRA court] committed an error of law by denying [Draucker’s] prayer for PCRA relief seeking a modification of his DUI sentence when a prior DUI conviction – relied upon for a mandatory sentence in the instant case
-3- J-S06013-26
– was vacated prior to the filing of his PCRA, rendering his sentence illegal.
Draucker’s Brief at 4 (emphasis omitted).
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a petition
under the PCRA is to ascertain whether “the determination of the PCRA court
is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings
in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92
(Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
In support of his claim on appeal, Draucker first asserts that his prior
2021 and 2023 convictions were appropriately counted as prior offenses for
sentencing him for his 2023 Elk County conviction as a third DUI offense.
However, after he filed his PCRA, his 2023 DUI conviction was vacated by this
Court in 2024. According to Draucker, a third offense sentence “would not
have been applicable except for the conviction that was vacated.” Draucker’s
Brief at 10-11 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(3)). Draucker therefore contends
that, “[w]hile the Trial Court did not create any error at the time of sentencing,
presently because it is based upon a vacated conviction, [his] sentence is
illegal and should be modified to reflect a second offense.” Id. at 11.
The PCRA court found no merit to Draucker’s claim. It determined that
the relief requested was not permitted given the clear language of Section
3806, which clearly provides that the sentencing court “shall calculate the
-4- J-S06013-26
number of prior offenses, if any, at the time of sentencing.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
3806. The court explained:
[The PCRA court] does not find any merit as a matter of law and fact in the relief being requested by [Draucker] in [his PCRA petition]. Foremost, the relief being requested by [Draucker] is contrary to [Section] 3806[.]
***
If this court applied [Section] 3806 in the context of now modifying [Draucker’s] sentence, as this is the relief being requested by [him], this court maintains that at time of sentencing modification [Draucker] would now have two prior [DUI] offenses in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania as well as apparently one prior [DUI] offense in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Consequently, if modification would or should occur this court finds that the sentenced entered July 10, 2023 [in Elk County] should be properly modified as of the date of modification to [DUI] 75 Pa.C.S.A. S3802(a)(1), Felony Third Degree, Third or Subsequent Offense, whereby [Draucker] would be subject to undergo imprisonment of not less than ten (10) days and pay a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5000. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3803(a)(3) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3804(a)(3).
Based upon the aforesaid, this court does not find it necessary to extensively elaborate or analyze the time in which and the reasons for which a court may modify a sentence, including a sentence that is illegal, as this court finds that as of July 10, 2023, the sentence imposed by the court was legal and proper and as of February 20, 2025 the sentence entered by this court on July 10, 2023 remains a legal sentence notwithstanding what has transpired with [Draucker] in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania [regarding the 2023 conviction] since July 10, 2023 but more importantly since [June] 27, 2024 following the decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court as referenced hereinabove, namely [Draucker] has again [pled] guilty and been sentenced in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania [for the 2023 conviction].
-5- J-S06013-26
PCRA Court Opinion, 2/20/25, at 3-4 (excess capitalization omitted;
paragraph break added).
While we agree that Draucker’s claim does not entitle him to post-
conviction relief, we affirm the PCRA court’s order on a different basis. See
Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 151 A.3d 1117, 1127 n.14 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(explaining that this Court may affirm on any basis).
In order to be eligible for relief under the statute, a PCRA petitioner
must have been “convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth
and is at the time the relief is granted . . . currently serving a sentence of
imprisonment or probation or parole for the crime.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9543(a)(1)(i). As soon as his sentence is completed, a petitioner becomes
ineligible for relief under the PCRA regardless of whether he was serving his
sentence when he filed the petition. Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d
1174, 1176 (Pa. Super. 2009). Significantly, eligibility for relief under the
PCRA is offense specific; thus, whenever a petitioner is no longer serving a
sentence for the crime at issue, he is no longer eligible for relief from that
conviction. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 973, 904 (Pa. 2011)
(concluding challenges to convictions for lesser crimes were not cognizable
under the PCRA because, although the appellant was still serving a death
sentence for murder, sentence for the other lesser crimes had expired).
Here, Draucker’s parole for his 2023 Elk County DUI conviction ended
on July 10, 2025. Therefore, Draucker is no longer serving his sentence and
-6- J-S06013-26
is ineligible for PCRA relief. Thus, the PCRA court’s order denying Draucker’s
petition is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
5/19/2026
-7-