HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1504 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
Vo
CORY ALISTER CORMANY
IN RE:
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-1504 CRIMINAL TERM
PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., March 11, 1999:--
Petitioner, Cory Alister Cormany, filed a petition for relief under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 et seq. Counsel was appointed and a
hearing conducted on March 1, 1999.
On November 19, 1997, petitioner was convicted by a jury on counts of
resisting arrest,~ defiant trespass,2 and public drunkenness? On December 30, 1997,
petitioner was sentenced on the counts of public drunkenness and defiant trespass to
pay the costs of prosecution. On the offense of resisting arrest, petitioner was
sentenced to a term in a state correctional institution for a term of not less than twelve
months nor more than twenty-four months.4 Petitioner filed a motion for post-
sentence relief in which he sought an arrest of judgment or a new trial and a
modification of his state sentence on the count of resisting arrest. On January 20,
1998, an order was entered, supported by a written opinion, denying the petition for
1. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104.
2. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(i).
3. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
4. Petitioner is currently serving that sentence.
97-1504 CRIMINAL TERM
post-sentence relief. Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania in which he raised two issues: (1) did the court err by basing his
aggravated range sentence on impermissible counts, and (2) the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction for resisting arrest. The Superior Court entered an
order on February 11, 1999, supported by a memorandum opinion, affirming the
judgment of sentence.
In his petition and at the post-conviction hearing petitioner maintains (1) he was
not given his Miranda warnings when he was confronted and arrested,s (2) he was
not told of the reason why he was arrested and taken into custody, (3) he was
harassed, subdued and assaulted by the police when he was taken into custody, (4)
he was denied a request to make a phone call when he was committed to prison
following his preliminary arraignment, (5) he missed a court appearance during the
preliminary stages of his case because he was not sent a letter notifying him of the
date, and (6) because he only drank three beers on the night of his arrest, he had not
consumed enough alcohol to be found guilty of public drunkenness. The facts in a
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as set forth in the opinion in support of the
order of July 20, 1998, denying the petition for posttrial relief, are:
In September, 1996, defendant received a certified letter from the
manager of the Elwood Garden Apartments which informed him that he
was no longer allowed on the premises of the apartments at 121 West
Ridge Street in the Borough of Carlisle. On June 21, 1997, Officer
Shane Cohick of the Carlisle Police responded to a complaint of an
5. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694 (1966).
-2-
97-1504 CRIMINAL TERM
intoxicated person in the 100 Block of West Ridge Street. The officer
found defendant in an extremely intoxicated condition on the property of
the Elwood Garden Apartments. Defendant was hiding behind a
dumpster. He had a beer in his hand, was staggering, and was
mumbling non-sensibly. Defendant was taken into custody and
transported to the Carlisle Police Station. When told that he would be
placed in a holding cell, defendant responded that he was going to spit
on the police officers who were present. When police removed his
handcuffs, defendant began flailing his arms and arching his back. Two
officers took his arms to lead him to a cell. Defendant struggled and
spit in the face of one officer. The officers then grabbed defendant's
head and arms and in a protracted struggle got the obscenity spewing
defendant into a straight jacket and leg shackles. Defendant was then
placed into a holding cell.
The standards for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act are set forth in
Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 538 Pa. 455 (1994). The spontaneous statements that
petitioner made at the police station during his obscenity spewing tirade were not
subject to suppression for a Miranda violation because they were not statements
made during interrogation. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 403 Pa. Super. 530 (1991).
There was no evidence admitted at trial that petitioner was interrogated after he was
taken into custody, nor were any statements that he may have made during any
interrogation admitted into evidence. Accordingly, petitioner's trial counsel could not
have been ineffective for failing to seek the suppression of evidence.
Petitioner's bald assertion during his post-conviction hearing that he was
harassed, subdued and assaulted by the police when he was taken into custody does
not form a basis for granting him post-conviction relief. He did not choose to testify
at trial nor has he claimed that he was in any way denied that right. Likewise, his
belated assertion that he drank only three beers on the night of his arrest does not
-3-
97-1504 CRIMINAL TERM
form a basis for granting him post-conviction relief. Nor do his remaining assertions
that he was not told the reason why he was arrested and taken into custody, that he
was denied a request to make a phone call after he was committed to prison
following his preliminary arraignment, and that he missed an appearance in the
preliminary stages of the case because he was not sent a letter notifying him of the
date.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, II
day of March, 1999, the petition of Cory Alister Cormany
for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, IS DENIED.
By the .Court,
Edgar B. Bayle
Jaime Keating, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Michael Scherer, Esquire
For Petitioner
:saa
-4-