Com. v. Liciaga, H.

J-S21019-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
HARRY LEO LICIAGA
Appellant No. 2412 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003464-1989
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 22, 2016
Harry Leo Liciaga appeals, pro se, from the trial court’s order denying
his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court treated as a petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-
9546.1 After careful review, we affirm.
In 1990, Liciaga was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder,
burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Although the trial court interpreted Liciaga’s motion as one filed under the
PCRA, we note that a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate avenue to
seek relief for his claim that he is being illegally detained by the Department
of Corrections (DOC). See Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super.
2014). However, it is well settled that we may affirm the trial court on
different grounds. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 778 A.2d 1215, 1223
n.6 (Pa. Super. 2001).
J-S21019-16
property (RSP) and criminal conspiracy. Liciaga was sentenced to serve a
term of life imprisonment. Liciaga filed post-sentence motions and a direct
appeal, which afforded him no relief. On May 19, 1997, Liciaga filed a PCRA
petition. After an evidentiary hearing, his petition was denied. On collateral
appeal, our Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order. On May 27, 2015,
Liciaga filed the instant pro se motion for habeas corpus relief. On July 6,
2015, the trial court denied Liciaga’s request for relief, interpreting his
motion as a PCRA petition. See Trial Court Order, 7/6/15, at 1-2. This
appeal follows.
On appeal, Liciaga claims that he is being illegally detained because
the DOC is unable to produce a written sentencing order containing proper
statutory authorization for his confinement.
In Joseph, supra, the defendant made a similar argument to the one
Liciaga advances in his petition for habeas corpus relief. The defendant in
that case also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his
current sentence was illegal because the DOC did not have a written copy of
his sentencing order. However, because the trial court determined that the
record contained either a transcript of the defendant’s sentencing hearing or
a separate, valid sentencing order, the court found that “the existent record
authorized [the defendant’s] incarceration.” Id. at 368. On appeal, our
Court held that:
The trial court properly reviewed the record and discovered a
valid sentencing order contained therein. Moreover, the trial
court correctly concluded that, even in the absence of a
written sentencing order, the DOC had continuing
-2-
J-S21019-16
authority to detain [the defendant]. We discern no abuse
of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion.
Id. at 372 (emphasis added). While a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
the proper vehicle for Liciaga’s illegal detention claim, Joseph makes it clear
that “section 97642 neither expressly vests, nor implies the vestiture, in a
prisoner of any remedy for deviation from the procedures prescribed within.”
Id. at 371.
Instantly, the DOC produced a Lehigh County sentencing order, at
Liciaga’s request, that confirms that Liciaga was tried by a jury, found guilty
of criminal homicide, burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking,
and RSP, and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. Moreover, the
certified record contains notes of testimony from Liciaga’s sentencing
hearing where the Honorable John E. Backenstoe ordered that he serve a life
sentence. N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 11/1/90, at 20. Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion3 in dismissing
Liciaga’s motion where the existing record authorizes Liciaga’s incarceration.
Joseph, 96 A.3d at 372; Travis v. Giroux, 83 A.3d 525 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2013).
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
2
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764 (listing information required upon commitment of
inmate to custody of DOC).
3
The standard of review on appeal following the grant or denial of a habeas
corpus petition is whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re
Garcia, 984 A.2d 506 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-3-
J-S21019-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/2016
-4-