J-S70041-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANTHONY J. FRANKLIN

Appellant No. 1540 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered April 24, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0007203-2006

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2015

Anthony Franklin appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas 

of Delaware County that denied his petition for habeas corpus. After careful 

review, we affirm.

On December 5, 2007, Franklin entered into a negotiated guilty plea to 

robbery and criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. Pursuant to the 

agreement, the court sentenced him to 81⁄2 to 20 years’ incarceration. 

Franklin did not file an appeal.

Franklin filed a pro se PCRA petition on October 21, 2008, and the trial 

court appointed counsel who filed a no merit letter pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S70041-15

- 2 -

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). The court dismissed the petition 

without a hearing on April 28, 2009.

Franklin filed a second PCRA petition on April 26, 2010, which was 

dismissed on October 28, 2010. On appeal to this Court, we affirmed. 

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 60 A.3d 845 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished 

memorandum). Franklin then filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which 

our Supreme Court denied on March 26, 2013. Commonwealth v. 

Franklin, 63 A.3d 1244 (Pa. 2013). 

On December 29, 2014, Franklin filed a pro se pleading titled “Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Custody Credit Problem, and Refusal to Honor 

Negotiated Plea Agreement to Run Concurrent with Subsequent Pending 

Conviction with Delaware County.” In the Petition, Franklin avers: (1) his 

Delaware County negotiated plea agreement for 81⁄2 to 20 years’ 

incarceration contained a provision that his sentence would be served 

concurrently with any sentence imposed for pending charges in Philadelphia; 

(2) he subsequently entered a plea agreement in Philadelphia for 10 to 20 

years’ incarceration; (3) the Department of Corrections (DOC) and

Philadelphia have refused to honor the Delaware County plea agreement, (4) 

he is “virtually unable to obtain Notes of Testimony of December 5, 2007, 

guilty plea proceedings, Sentencing Orders, and terms of negotiated plea 
J-S70041-15

- 3 -

agreement;1and (5) DOC has failed to properly credit him for periods while 

in custody.

The court held argument on April 23, 2015 and denied the petition the 

following day. On appeal, Franklin raises the following issues for our 

review:2

1. Whether [the] habeas court erred in fail[ing] to grant 

discovery request for [the] December 5, 2007, guilty pleas 

notes of testimony.

2. Whether [the] habeas court erred in fail[ing] to grant custody 

credits for the [period] in county custody, prior to Petitioner’s 

transfer to the Department of Corrections.

Appellant’s Brief, at 4. 

As a preliminary matter, we reject the Commonwealth’s position that 

the court lacked jurisdiction to consider any of the claims raised in the 

Petition. In Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 1989), 

this Court held that with respect to a challenge to credit for time served:

If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous 

computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the 

appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the 

Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau’s computation. If, 

on the other hand, the alleged error is thought to be attributable 

to the ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then 

a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for 

clarification and or correction of the sentence imposed.

____________________________________________

1

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 12/29/14, at 6.

2 The decision to grant or deny a petition for habeas corpus will be reversed 

only for a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Giusto, 810 

A.2d 123, 125 (Pa. Super. 2002).
J-S70041-15

- 4 -

It [is] only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a trial 

court’s alleged failure to award credit for time served as required 

by law in imposing sentence, that a challenge to the sentence 

[is] deemed cognizable as a due process claim in PCRA 

proceedings.

Perry, supra at 512-13.

Because Franklin essentially sought clarification of his Delaware 

County sentence, he properly raised the issue in a habeas corpus petition. 

The trial court engaged in a thorough review of the guilty plea 

transcript and concluded, “it is clear that the Commonwealth has not refused 

to honor the terms of the negotiated guilty plea, and that [Franklin] 

understood his sentence.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/21/15, at 2. Our 

independent review of the transcript and the certificate of imposition of 

judgment of sentence confirms there was no agreement that Franklin’s 

sentence would run concurrently with any sentence to be imposed on the 

pending Philadelphia charges.3

Because this issue was properly before the court, the court had 

jurisdiction to consider Franklin’s request to obtain the transcript of his 

December 5, 2007 guilty plea proceeding. Upon review, the trial court 

____________________________________________

3 We note that Franklin does not raise the concurrent sentence issue in the 

statement of question involved or in the argument section of his brief. The 

only reference appears in the summary of argument where Franklin states 

that his negotiated plea agreement included a sentence “to run concurrent 

upon conviction of pending charge[s] in Philadelphia County.” Appellant’s 

Brief, at 6. Because the issue was not otherwise raised in Franklin’s brief, it 

is waived. Commonwealth v. Smith, 567 A.2d 1070, 1072 n.1 (Pa. Super. 

1989) (issues raised in summary of argument but not addressed in 

argument in chief waived).
J-S70041-15

- 5 -

determined that Franklin was not entitled to the transcript because one had 

been provided to Franklin’s first PCRA counsel who reviewed it before filing 

his Turner/Finley letter. See Turner/Finley Letter, 1/21/09, at 1. We 

discern no abuse of discretion in this decision, and accordingly affirm the 

trial court.

Franklin next asserts that the trial court erred by failing to grant credit 

for time that he was in custody. We disagree because the trial court did not 

have jurisdiction to consider the claim. “A challenge to DOC’s computation 

or construction of a sentence is not a cognizable claim under the PCRA. 

Rather, if the alleged error is the result of DOC’s erroneous computation, 

then the appropriate mechanism for redress is an original action in [the 

Commonwealth] Court challenging DOC's computation.” Allen v. Com., 

Dept. of Corrections, 103 A.3d 365, 373 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). 

Order affirmed.

Judge Donohue joins the Memorandum.

Judge Platt concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/2/2015