Com. v. Gaines, R. (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S30030-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROBERT DA-JUAN GAINES, Appellant No. 1497 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order July 15, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No.: CP-28-CR-0001303-2009 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J. DISSENTING STATEMENT BY JENKINS, J. FILED JULY 14, 2014 Based on my analysis of Commonwealth v. Bryant, 780 A.2d 646 (Pa.2001), I respectfully dissent from the order quashing this appeal. In my view, Bryant only applies to PCRA appeals in capital cases, not to noncapital cases such as this. The defendant in Bryant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on direct appeal. He filed a PCRA petition seeking both a new trial due to alleged errors during the guilt phase and a new sentencing hearing. The PCRA court denied all claims of guilt phase error but granted a new sentencing hearing. Bryant filed an appeal challenging the denial of guilt 1 J-S30030-14 phase relief. The Superior Court quashed the appeal, but the Supreme Court granted allocator. Bryant states 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 Id. at 647 (emphasis added). The fifth paragraph of the opinion states: 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. 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. Id. (emphasis added). The Court then reasons: Rule 1510 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure1 or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for postconviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of ap Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b) defines a fin ____________________________________________ 1 Rule 1510 has been renumbered as Pa.R.Crim.P. 910. -2- J-S30030-14 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, apprise it of the facts of the underlying crime, hold a full hearing, instruct the jury about sentencing in a capital case and then allow it deliberate and reach a decision, only to have the sentence rendered a nullity if the decision of the PCRA court regarding the guilt phase is reversed on appeal. Re-sentencing the defendant before engaging in appellate review of the denial of PCRA relief also results in piecemeal litigation, delay in the determination of guilt phase issues, and potential misuse of judicial resources if the new sentence is rendered moot by subsequent disposition of the guilt phase issues. For these reasons, the orderly administration of justice requires that review of the PCRA court's decision denying guilt phase relief should precede the imposition of a new sentence by the trial court. -3- J-S30030-14 Id. at 648 (emphasis added). In my view, the Bryant court intended its decision to apply only to capital cases. The limiting language in the issue articulated in the first and fifth paragraphs so indicates, as does phrases not commonly associated with non-capital cases and description of the inefficiencies and inequities that attend empaneling a jury for a new penalty phase hearing prior to the appeal of guilt phase issues. None of these inefficiencies or inequities arise in non-capital cases because of vast differences in noncapital sentencing procedures. To the contrary, it is much more efficient in non-capital cases for sentencing to take place before the defendant appeals any alleged trial or ineffectiveness of counsel claims. I acknowledge that in support of its decision, the Bryant court cites to former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1510 (now Rule 910), whose language applies to both capital and non- n order denying, dismissing, or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for post-conviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of ap construes Rule 1510 in the context of capital cases Bryant merely that is, an order denying guilt phase issues is a final order only in capital PCRA cases. It is erroneous to extend Bryant to non-capital cases due to the significant differences between capital and non-capital procedures and due to our all issues -- whether -4- J-S30030-14 pre-trial, trial, or sentencing issues defendants to appeal. -5- before allowing non-capital PCRA
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
