HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-962 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : 962 CRIMINAL 1990
:
THOMAS E. CHISMAN :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
The defendant was sentenced at the above criminal number on July 9, 1991, to terms of
imprisonment for theft by extortion and criminal attempt. The sentences ran concurrently and
were in an aggregate of not less than three nor more than six years. On September 29, 1997, well
after the expiration of the defendant's maximum sentence, he filed the present post-conviction
relief petition. Despite the fact that the petition appeared frivolous on its face, the defendant was
eventually granted a hearing. On November 25, 1998, we entered an order denying the petition
for post-conviction relief. The defendant has now appealed.
The record of our recent hearing revealed that the defendant is currently incarcerated as a
result of a parole violation for an offense which predated his conviction at the above number and
term. That conviction was docketed at Cumberland County No. 631 Criminal 1981 and was for
a term of three and one-half to twenty-one years. The petitioner is not currently serving a
sentence of imprisonment or undergoing probation or parole in regard to his conviction and
sentence in the captioned case. Moreover, his sentence at 962 Criminal 1990 having expired, it
is clear that he is not serving a sentence which must expire before the commencement of the
disputed sentence. The pertinent statute is clear that:
(a) General rule. - To be eligible for relief under this
subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a
962 CRIMINAL 1990
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;
.... or
(iii) serving a sentence which must expire before
the person may commence the disputed sentence.
42 Pa.C.S.A. 953(a).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Ahlbom, 548 Pa.544, 699 A.2d
718 (1997) found that the above statutory language was free of any ambiguity. In Ahlbom, the
defendant had filed a P.C.R.A. petition in the fall of 1993. A hearing was scheduled for February
17, 1994. On February 14, 1994, Ahlbom had finished serving his sentence. The court
concluded that, once the sentence had expired, the petitioner became ineligible for P.C.R.A.
relief even though the petition had been filed while he was serving his sentence.
In this case, not only had the petitioner's sentence expired prior to a hearing but had, in
That he is no longer eligible for post-conviction
fact, expired prior to the filing of his petition.
relief is pellucidly clear.
December Z. q '~ , 1998
A.} ,J.
962 CRIMINAL 1990
Jamie Keating, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attomey
Thomas Chisman, AK6895
SCIC
P. O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200
:rlm