Com. v. Keller, C. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • J-S28032-24
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    CHRISTOPHER ROBERT KELLER                    :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 3129 EDA 2023
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 7, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
    No(s): CP-39-CR-0000406-2022
    BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and LANE, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.:                             FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2024
    Christopher Robert Keller (“Keller”) appeals from the order denying his
    petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. 1 Because Keller is no
    longer serving a sentence for the underlying conviction, he is not eligible for
    PCRA relief. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying his petition.
    In 2021, Keller was operating his vehicle when a police officer stopped
    him for an expired registration. During the stop, the officer suspected that
    Keller was under the influence of narcotics, and a subsequent blood draw
    revealed the presence of 9.2 nanograms of Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) in
    Keller’s system.     As a result, police charged Keller with driving under the
    influence of a controlled substance—second offense (“DUI”), and related
    offenses. On June 7, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Keller
    plead guilty to the count of DUI, which was graded as a first-degree
    ____________________________________________
    1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
    J-S28032-24
    misdemeanor. That same day, the trial court sentenced Keller to two years’
    probation, with 120 of those days to be served on house arrest with electronic
    monitoring. Additionally, as a result of this plea, Keller received a mandatory
    suspension of his driver’s license. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3804(e)(1)(i).
    Keller subsequently appealed his judgment of sentence, and the trial
    court removed the requirement of house arrest pending the appeal’s outcome.
    Notably, however, the trial court left intact Keller’s probationary supervision
    in accordance with his judgment of sentence. On June 30, 2023, this Court
    affirmed Keller’s judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Keller, 
    301 A.3d 941
     (Pa. Super. 2023) (unpublished memorandum). Keller did not seek
    further review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
    On August 2, 2023, Keller filed the instant timely, counseled PCRA
    petition, his first. In his petition, Keller requested that the PCRA court conduct
    an evidentiary hearing to determine whether trial counsel rendered ineffective
    assistance in relation to the guilty plea agreement. The PCRA court granted
    the request and conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter at which both
    Keller and trial counsel testified. Thereafter, on November 7, 2023, the PCRA
    court entered an order denying the petition. In doing so, the court held that
    Keller’s “loss of driving privileges [was] irrelevant to the determination of
    whether [his] guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly.”           Order
    Denying PCRA Petition, 11/7/23, at unnumbered 2 (internal quotations
    omitted). Further, the court also determined that Keller was not forced or
    compelled against his will to enter the plea. See 
    id.
     at unnumbered 3. Keller
    -2-
    J-S28032-24
    timely filed a notice of appeal, and both he and the PCRA court complied with
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
    Keller raises the following issues for our review:
    1. Whether [trial] counsel denied [Keller] effective assistance of
    counsel by failing to inform him of the collateral consequences of
    his plea, specifically the suspension of his driver’s license?
    2. Whether [trial] counsel denied [Keller] effective assistance of
    counsel by threatening to withdraw his representation if [Keller]
    did not accept the Commonwealth’s plea offer?
    3. Whether the PCRA court errored [sic] as a matter of law in
    overruling PCRA counsel’s objection to the question of whether
    [Keller] denies that he had 9.2 nanograms of marijuana in his
    system at the time of his arrest?
    4. Whether [Keller]’s guilty plea was not entered knowingly and
    intelligently as aspects of his probation were not explained to him
    by [trial] counsel or the court?
    Keller’s Brief at viii (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
    Before we may address the issues raised by Keller on appeal, we must
    first determine whether he is eligible for relief under the PCRA. As related to
    the instant case, one of the requirements for PCRA relief is that the petitioner
    must still be serving the sentence for the conviction in question. Specifically,
    the PCRA provides as follows:
    (a) General rule.—To be eligible for relief under this subchapter,
    the petitioner 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:
    -3-
    J-S28032-24
    (i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment,
    probation or parole for the crime[.]
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). A petitioner becomes ineligible for PCRA relief
    once he is no longer serving his sentence, regardless of whether he was
    serving it when the petition was filed, or he was in the midst of appealing a
    PCRA court order. See Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 
    151 A.3d 1108
    , 1112-
    13 (Pa. Super. 2016). Thus, if Keller is no longer serving his sentence, he is
    ineligible for relief from this Court. See 
    id.
    We reiterate that on June 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Keller to
    two years’ probation, 120 days of which were to be served on house arrest.
    As this sentence appeared to have ended on June 7, 2024, we directed the
    trial court to advise as to whether Keller was still serving this sentence. The
    trial court has since confirmed that Keller completed his sentence on this date.
    See PCRA Response to Rule to Show Cause, 10/21/24, at 1. 2
    Consequently, because Keller is no longer serving the sentence
    associated with the instant petition, we conclude that he is ineligible for PCRA
    relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i); see also Plunkett, 
    151 A.3d at 1112-13
    . Thus, we affirm the denial of Keller’s instant PCRA petition, albeit
    on different grounds. See Commonwealth v. Parker, 
    249 A.3d 590
    , 595
    (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating we may affirm a PCRA court’s order on any legal
    basis supported by the certified record).
    Order affirmed.
    ____________________________________________
    2 Additionally, PCRA counsel has not responded to this inquiry, and thus has
    not disputed that Keller is no longer serving the sentence.
    -4-
    J-S28032-24
    Date: 11/18/2024
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3129 EDA 2023

Judges: Lazarus

Filed Date: 11/18/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/18/2024