Com. v. Stodghill, D. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J.S76034/13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. DAVID MANNING STODGHILL, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 184 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered December 28, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-21-CR-0002465-2010 BEFORE: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JANUARY 24, 2014 Appellant, David Manning Stodghill, appeals from the order entered in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas denying his first, timely Post Conviction Relief Act1 -21-CR- 2465-2010. Appellant contends the PCRA court erred in concluding that his cognizable, we dismiss. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 9546. J. S76034/13 On November 10, 2010, Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated indecent assault2 in CR-0801-2010, indecent assault3 and corruption of minors4 in CR-2465-2010. On May 11, 2011, Appellant was sentenced in CR-0801- mprisonment in CR- 2465-2010 to be served concurrently with the sentence in CR-0801-2010. Appellant did not file a direct appeal following entry of judgment of 2011.5 On May 21, 2012, Appellant timely filed the pro se PCRA petition giving rise to this appeal. Notably, Appellant only sought relief under the Act with respect to the convictions in CR-2465-2010. Counsel was subsequently appointed to represent Appellant. Following a hearing, the PCRA court 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(7). 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8). 4 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1). 5 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). -2- J. S76034/13 followed.6 In his brief, Appellant raises three issues: because [Appellant] pled to charges prosecution by the statute of limitations; barred from ineffective counsel because counsel did not inform [Appellant] of the statute of limitations defense; and voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently because intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to him. Before we address the issues raised by Appellant, we must consider Appellant is not currently serving a sentence at CR-2465-2010 and is not, therefore, eligible for relief under the PCRA.7 6 After timely seeking an extension of time, Appellant complied with the 7 brief and that the Commonwealth attached as an exhibit a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections sentence status summary form. The form -2465-2010 expired on May 11, 2013. We further note that Appellant did not seek to strike the exhibit or file longer eligible for PRCA relief. -3- J. S76034/13 In order to be eligible for relief under the PCRA, a defendant 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 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1). A petitioner is ineligible for relief under the PCRA once the sentence for the challenged conviction is completed. See Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174, 1176 (Pa. Super. 2009); Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939, 941-42 (Pa. Super. 2006). Recently, in Commonwealth v. Turner, 2013 WL 6134576 (Pa. filed Nov. 22, 2013), our Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 9543(a)(1) bars a defendant who is no longer serving a state sentence is so short as to render a collateral challenge impossible. Id. at *10. imprisonment in CR-2465-2010. When Appellant filed his PCRA petition on -4- J. S76034/13 lief on December 28, 2012, he was still serving the sentence on this docket expired on May 11, 2013, nine days before the PCRA court authored its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. Accordingly, we are constrained to find that because Appellant is no longer serving a sentence on the conviction he seeks to challenge, he no longer meets the requirements of Section 9543(a)(1). See Williams, 977 A.2d at 1176. Therefore, we have no basis upon which to grant Appellant the relief he seeks. 42 Pa.C.S § 9543(a). Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 1/24/2014 -5-

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.