J-S47043-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
ANTHONY PAGE
Appellant No. 873 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 18, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No.: CP-46-CR-0021037-1986
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2014
Anthony Page appeals the February 18, 2014 order that dismissed his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Due to the nature of our decision, we need not review the factual
relevant procedural history of this case was
1 pursuant to the Post- as follows:
On October 15, 1986, following a multi-day jury trial, [Page] was convicted of second[-]degree murder2 and was subsequently
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b). J-S47043-14
was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.[3] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his [petition for allowance of] appeal on April 14, 1989.[4]
[Page] in filing a [PCRA petition. Page] received correspondence from Savino dated September 24, 1996[,] informing [Page] that he . . . was attempting to schedule a PCRA hearing. However, approximately two years later on May 4, 1998, [Page] was informed by [the PCRA court] that there was no pending action related to his case. [Page] then filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 9, 1999. In an effor hired another attorney by the name of Clinton Johnson, Esq. However, Johnson never entered his appearance or contacted [the PCRA court] to inform it of his representation. As a result,
recommendation and after conducting [its] own independent . The] decision was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court on [July 17], 2000.[5 Page] then filed a second PCRA petition on [or about] May 22, 2002. Finding this petition to also lack merit, [the PCRA court] dismissed it and [the] decision was ultimately affirmed by the Superior Court.[6 On October 23, 2003, the
of appeal.7]
3 Commonwealth v. Page, 548 A.2d 642 (Pa. Super. July 29, 1988) (table). 4 Commonwealth v. Page, 559 A.2d 36 (Pa. April 14, 1989) (table). 5 Commonwealth v. Page, 761 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. July 17, 2000) (table). 6 Commonwealth v. Page, 830 A.2d 1051 (Pa. Super. June 16, 2003) (table). 7 Commonwealth v. Page, 834 A.2d 1142 (Pa. October 23, 2003) (table).
-2- J-S47043-14
[Page] filed [a third] PCRA petition on March 4, 2008[,] whereby inactions constitute[d] counsel abandonment.
Commonwealth v. Page, 1583 EDA 2008, slip op. at 1-2 (Pa. Super.
October 30, 2009), reargument denied (April 16, 2009). The PCRA court
February 11, 2009. Id. On September 28, 2009, our Supreme Court denied
Commonwealth v. Page, 980 A.2d
607 (Pa. September 28, 2009) (table). On August 24, 2012, Page filed a
fourth PCRA petition. On October 23, 2012, the PCRA court dismissed
On October 24, 2013, Page filed a pro se Habeas
Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
his capacity as the Superintendent of SCI Mahanoy, was illegally detaining
See Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum,
10/24/2013, at 1-2. On December 18, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a
response
should be construed as a PCRA petition and, as such, was untimely.
On December 20, 2013, the trial court entered notice of its intent to
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On
January 7, 2014, Page filed a response. On February 18, 2014, the trial
-3- J-S47043-14
legally cognizable grounds for the relief requested, and [is] untimely
On March 6, 2014, Page filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court
did not file a response to this filing.
On March 19, 2014, Page filed a notice of appeal. The trial court did
not order Page to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Page did not file one. On March 24,
2014, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), in which
the one-year time limit set out at 42 Pa.C.S.
See Opinion,
3/24/2014, at 2.
habeas s
Brief at 2.
habeas
corpus as a PCRA petition because Page alleged that his sentence was illegal
produce a written sentencing order. See
subchapter provides for an action by which persons . . . serving illegal
-4- J-S47043-14
corpus gal
habeas corpus Joseph v. Glunt, 2014 PA Super 107, at *3 (Pa. Super.
May 23, 2014) (citing Brown v. Penna. Dept. of Corr., 81 A.3d 814, 815
(Pa. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v.
Hendrick, 280 A.2d 110, 112 (Pa. 1971)); Warren v. DOC, 616 A.2d 140,
petition for a writ of habeas corpus instead of a petition under the PCRA,
which typically governs such collateral claims of illegal sentence.8
Accordingly, we must concede that Page is technically correct in
asserting that the trial court committed error.
submission as a PCRA petition. Glunt, supra
Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Forest Resources, LLC, 83
A.2d 177, 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d
PCRA, we refer to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County as the
-5- J-S47043-14
sion
on an alternative basis. Specifically, we are constrained to conclude that
habeas corpus is meritless.
Our standard of review in this context is axiomatic:
The ancient writ of habeas corpus is inherited from the common law, referred to by Sir William Blackstone as the most celebrated writ in the English law. The writ lies to secure the immediate release of one who has been detained unlawfully, in violation of due process. [T]raditionally, the writ has functioned only to test
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 605 A.2d 1271, 1272-73 (Pa. Super. 1992)
habeas corpus is a
civil remedy [that] lies solely for commitments under crimin
Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(citing Wolfe Habeas corpus is an extraordinary
remedy and may only be invoked when other remedies in the ordinary
course have been exhausted or are not av Id. (citing
Commonwealth ex rel. Kennedy v. Myers, 143 A.2d 660, 661 (Pa.
for [a] writ of habeas corpus Rivera
of Corrs., 837 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Instantly, Page argues that the DOC has failed to produce a written
copy of his sentencing order pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8). See
- habeas petition
-6- J-S47043-14
stems from 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9764 . . . . Upon realizing that the [DOC] did not
have a copy of the sentencing order, . . . [Page] filed his habeas
In pertinent part, the statute cited by Page in support of his argument
provides as follows:
§ 9764. Information required upon commitment and subsequent disposition
(a) General rule. Upon commitment of an inmate to the custody of the [DOC], the sheriff or transporting official
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S47043-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
ANTHONY PAGE
Appellant No. 873 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 18, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No.: CP-46-CR-0021037-1986
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2014
Anthony Page appeals the February 18, 2014 order that dismissed his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Due to the nature of our decision, we need not review the factual
relevant procedural history of this case was
1 pursuant to the Post- as follows:
On October 15, 1986, following a multi-day jury trial, [Page] was convicted of second[-]degree murder2 and was subsequently
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b). J-S47043-14
was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.[3] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his [petition for allowance of] appeal on April 14, 1989.[4]
[Page] in filing a [PCRA petition. Page] received correspondence from Savino dated September 24, 1996[,] informing [Page] that he . . . was attempting to schedule a PCRA hearing. However, approximately two years later on May 4, 1998, [Page] was informed by [the PCRA court] that there was no pending action related to his case. [Page] then filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 9, 1999. In an effor hired another attorney by the name of Clinton Johnson, Esq. However, Johnson never entered his appearance or contacted [the PCRA court] to inform it of his representation. As a result,
recommendation and after conducting [its] own independent . The] decision was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court on [July 17], 2000.[5 Page] then filed a second PCRA petition on [or about] May 22, 2002. Finding this petition to also lack merit, [the PCRA court] dismissed it and [the] decision was ultimately affirmed by the Superior Court.[6 On October 23, 2003, the
of appeal.7]
3 Commonwealth v. Page, 548 A.2d 642 (Pa. Super. July 29, 1988) (table). 4 Commonwealth v. Page, 559 A.2d 36 (Pa. April 14, 1989) (table). 5 Commonwealth v. Page, 761 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. July 17, 2000) (table). 6 Commonwealth v. Page, 830 A.2d 1051 (Pa. Super. June 16, 2003) (table). 7 Commonwealth v. Page, 834 A.2d 1142 (Pa. October 23, 2003) (table).
-2- J-S47043-14
[Page] filed [a third] PCRA petition on March 4, 2008[,] whereby inactions constitute[d] counsel abandonment.
Commonwealth v. Page, 1583 EDA 2008, slip op. at 1-2 (Pa. Super.
October 30, 2009), reargument denied (April 16, 2009). The PCRA court
February 11, 2009. Id. On September 28, 2009, our Supreme Court denied
Commonwealth v. Page, 980 A.2d
607 (Pa. September 28, 2009) (table). On August 24, 2012, Page filed a
fourth PCRA petition. On October 23, 2012, the PCRA court dismissed
On October 24, 2013, Page filed a pro se Habeas
Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
his capacity as the Superintendent of SCI Mahanoy, was illegally detaining
See Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum,
10/24/2013, at 1-2. On December 18, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a
response
should be construed as a PCRA petition and, as such, was untimely.
On December 20, 2013, the trial court entered notice of its intent to
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On
January 7, 2014, Page filed a response. On February 18, 2014, the trial
-3- J-S47043-14
legally cognizable grounds for the relief requested, and [is] untimely
On March 6, 2014, Page filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court
did not file a response to this filing.
On March 19, 2014, Page filed a notice of appeal. The trial court did
not order Page to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Page did not file one. On March 24,
2014, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), in which
the one-year time limit set out at 42 Pa.C.S.
See Opinion,
3/24/2014, at 2.
habeas s
Brief at 2.
habeas
corpus as a PCRA petition because Page alleged that his sentence was illegal
produce a written sentencing order. See
subchapter provides for an action by which persons . . . serving illegal
-4- J-S47043-14
corpus gal
habeas corpus Joseph v. Glunt, 2014 PA Super 107, at *3 (Pa. Super.
May 23, 2014) (citing Brown v. Penna. Dept. of Corr., 81 A.3d 814, 815
(Pa. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v.
Hendrick, 280 A.2d 110, 112 (Pa. 1971)); Warren v. DOC, 616 A.2d 140,
petition for a writ of habeas corpus instead of a petition under the PCRA,
which typically governs such collateral claims of illegal sentence.8
Accordingly, we must concede that Page is technically correct in
asserting that the trial court committed error.
submission as a PCRA petition. Glunt, supra
Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Forest Resources, LLC, 83
A.2d 177, 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d
PCRA, we refer to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County as the
-5- J-S47043-14
sion
on an alternative basis. Specifically, we are constrained to conclude that
habeas corpus is meritless.
Our standard of review in this context is axiomatic:
The ancient writ of habeas corpus is inherited from the common law, referred to by Sir William Blackstone as the most celebrated writ in the English law. The writ lies to secure the immediate release of one who has been detained unlawfully, in violation of due process. [T]raditionally, the writ has functioned only to test
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 605 A.2d 1271, 1272-73 (Pa. Super. 1992)
habeas corpus is a
civil remedy [that] lies solely for commitments under crimin
Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(citing Wolfe Habeas corpus is an extraordinary
remedy and may only be invoked when other remedies in the ordinary
course have been exhausted or are not av Id. (citing
Commonwealth ex rel. Kennedy v. Myers, 143 A.2d 660, 661 (Pa.
for [a] writ of habeas corpus Rivera
of Corrs., 837 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Instantly, Page argues that the DOC has failed to produce a written
copy of his sentencing order pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8). See
- habeas petition
-6- J-S47043-14
stems from 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9764 . . . . Upon realizing that the [DOC] did not
have a copy of the sentencing order, . . . [Page] filed his habeas
In pertinent part, the statute cited by Page in support of his argument
provides as follows:
§ 9764. Information required upon commitment and subsequent disposition
(a) General rule. Upon commitment of an inmate to the custody of the [DOC], the sheriff or transporting official
officer, in addition to a copy of the court commitment form DC-300B generated from the Common Pleas Criminal Court Case Management System of the unified judicial system, the following information:
* * *
(8) A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed against the inmate which the county has notice.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9764.
Page is not the first Pennsylvania criminal appellant to seek relief by
way of section 9764. A panel of this Court adjudicated an identical issue in
Glunt, and concluded that section 9764 does not provide a cause of action,
or a remedy, for incarcerated appellants:
The language and structure of section 9764, viewed in context,
to detain a duly-sentenced prisoner, but, rather, sets forth the procedures and prerogatives associated with the transfer of an inmate from county to state detention. None of the provisions of section 9764 indicate an affirmative obligation on the part of the DOC to maintain and produce the documents enumerated in subsection 9764(a) upon the request of the incarcerated person. Moreover, section 9764 neither expressly vests, nor implies the
-7- J-S47043-14
vestiture, in a prisoner of any remedy for deviation from the procedures prescribed within.
Glunt, 2014 PA Super, at *5 (citing Travis v. Giroux, No. 489 C.D. 2013,
2013 WL 6710773, at *3 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 18, 2013)). Accordingly, in
Glunt
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Assuming, arguendo, that Page is correct and the DOC is unable to
produce a written copy of his sentencing order pursuant to subsection
9764(a)(8), he is not due any relief. Glunt, supra; see Travis, 2013 WL
tion 9764(a)(8)] requires
that a copy of the sentencing order be provided to the [DOC] upon
commitment of an inmate to its custody. However, it does not create
any remedy or cause of action for a prisoner based upon the failure 9 to provide a copy to the DOC
PCRA petition, the trial court nonetheless did not abuse its discretion in
habeas corpus.
Order affirmed.
9 The decisions of the Commonwealth Court are not binding upon this Court, but may serve as persuasive authority. Commonwealth v. Ortega, 995 A.2d 879, 885 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d
-8- J-S47043-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/13/2014
-9-