Com. v. Hardy, M. ( 2017 )

J-S13030-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHELLE A. HARDY
Appellant No. 2704 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002199-1998
CP-15-CR-0002828-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2017
Michelle Hardy appeals from the order, entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County, denying her petition filed under the Post
Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46, (“PCRA”). We affirm.
On November 20, 2015, Hardy entered a negotiated guilty plea to one
count of harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4), at docket number CP-15-
CR-0002828-2015. The court sentenced Hardy to one to nine months’
incarceration, with credit for time served. The court immediately paroled
Hardy, and on December 7, 2015, she submitted a pro se filing and, after
consultation with the public defender representing her, clarified that she
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13030-17
intended to file a PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel, who
subsequently sought to withdraw. The court denied counsel’s request to
withdraw on May 12, 2016, and held a hearing on July 18, 2016. Following
the PCRA hearing, on July 19, 2016, the court denied Hardy’s PCRA petition.
Hardy filed a timely notice of appeal, and the PCRA court ordered counsel to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On August 31, 2016, PCRA counsel filed a second
petition to withdraw, which was denied, and counsel thereafter filed a Rule
1925(b) statement. On appeal, Hardy raises two issues:
1. Trial counsel failed to investigate and utilize statements of
potential witnesses whose testimony would have benefited
[Hardy];
2. Whether [Hardy] was prevented from making informed,
intelligent decisions about her case because of the
medication she was taking at the time she entered her
plea.
Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
“[T]o be eligible for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must be
currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the
crime.” Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006),
citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i) (emphasis added). “As soon as his
sentence is completed, the petitioner becomes ineligible for relief, regardless
of whether he was serving his sentence when he filed the petition.” Hart,
911 A.2d at 942. Here, the maximum sentence for Hardy’s harassment
-2-
J-S13030-17
conviction expired on July 6, 2016. Thus, she is no longer subject to any
form of punishment for the underlying offense.
In addition, this Court has held that the PCRA precludes relief for those
petitioners whose sentences have expired, regardless of ongoing
consequences for other offenses. See Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699
A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997); see also Commonwealth v. Hayes, 596 A.2d 195(Pa. Super. 1991) (en banc) (“Since the legislature rewrote the eligibility
requirements, our examination of the specific language, in particular the
inclusion of the adverb ``currently’ leads to the conclusion that the
legislature intended to limit post conviction relief under the PCRA to
individuals who . . . are serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or
parole for a conviction, regardless of the collateral criminal consequences
from the conviction.”) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v.
Fisher, 703 A.2d 714, 716 (Pa. Super. 1997). Hardy is no longer in custody
or on probation or parole for the conviction challenged in her petition.
Therefore, she is not eligible for PCRA relief.
Order affirmed.1
____________________________________________
1
We note that the caption reflects two docket numbers, No. 15-CR-
0002828-2015, which pertains to the harassment conviction before us, and
No. 15-CR-0002199-1998, a prior case wherein Hardy was convicted of
killing her ex-boyfriend. Out of an abundance of caution, the PCRA court
included both docket numbers. However, in all of her filings, pro se and
counseled, as well as her appellate brief and arguments, Hardy refers only to
the docket number and issues pertaining to the harassment case.
-3-
J-S13030-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/27/2017
-4-