J -S29012-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

RAYNARD GRAVES 

Appellee 

Appellant No. 3183 EDA 2016 

Appeal from the Order September 13, 2016 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0810851-1994, 

CP-51-CR-0810861-1994, CP-51-CR-0810871-1994, 

CP-51-CR-0907281-1994, CP-51-CR-1000861-1994 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2017 

Raynard Graves appeals from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying his post -conviction writ of 

habeas corpus. After careful review, we affirm. 

In 1995, the trial court sentenced Graves to an aggregate term of 521/2 

to 105 years' imprisonment, after two separate juries convicted him of 

multiple offenses stemming from a shooting and four robberies.' Graves 

filed a direct appeal to this Court, which affirmed his judgment of sentence 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

' Graves was convicted of aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702, criminal 

conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 907, robbery, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701, and violation of the uniform 

firearms act (VUFA), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105. 
J -S29012-17 

in 1997. Commonwealth v. Graves, 698 A.2d 1345 (Pa. Super. 1997) 

(table). In 1998, Graves filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which our 

Supreme Court denied. Commonwealth v. Graves, 723 A.2d 670 (Pa. 

1998) (table). On December 27, 2007, Graves filed a PCRA petition pro se, 

which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely. This Court affirmed the 

dismissal on appeal. Commonwealth v. Graves, 3331 EDA 2008 (Pa. 

Super. 2009). On August 21, 2012, Graves filed a second PCRA petition pro 

se, which the PCRA court also dismissed as untimely. This Court affirmed on 

appeal. Commonwealth v. Graves, 2546 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

On June 15, 2016, Graves filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus ad 

subjiciendum,2 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The 

Honorable Gary S. Glazer, finding Graves was not entitled to relief pursuant 

to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46 ("PCRA"), 

appropriately treated the petition as a writ of habeas corpus. See 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (writ of habeas corpus 

continues to exist only in cases in which there is no remedy under the 

PCRA). Following review of the pleadings and record, Judge Glazer 

dismissed the writ of habeas corpus. 

2 This type of writ inquiries into "the lawfulness of the restrain of a person 

who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody." "Habeas Corpus Ad 

Subjiciendum." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam -Webster, n.d. Web. 24 

April 2017. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habeas corpus 

ad subjiciendum>. 

-2 
J -S29012-17 

On September 30, 2016, Graves filed a timely appeal in which he 

raises the following issue: "Whether the trial court abused its discretion in 

dismissing appellant's [p]etition for [w]rit of [h]abeas [c]orpus since he is 

confined absent a [s]entencing [o]rder required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9764(a)(8)."3 Brief of Appellant, at 3. Specifically, Graves claims that a 

"certified record - docketing entries and his sentencing transcript - cannot 

be used in his case to comprise an 'existent record' that authorizes his 

incarceration." Id. at 9. Graves' claim is of no avail. 

We agree with the trial court that a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

rather than a PCRA petition, is the proper vehicle for Graves' illegal 

detention claim. However, "section 9764 neither expressly vests, nor 

implies the vestiture, in a prisoner of any remedy for deviation from the 

procedures prescribed within." Id. at 371. In Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 

365 (Pa. Super. 2014), the defendant, like Graves, filed a petition for writ of 

3 Section 9764 states in relevant part: 

(a) General rule. --Upon commitment of an inmate to the 

custody of the Department of Corrections, the sheriff or 

transporting official shall provide to the institution's records 

officer or duty officer . . . the following information: 

* * * 

(8) A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed 

against the inmate which the county has notice. 

42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8). 

-3 
J -S29012-17 

habeas corpus in which he argued his current sentence was illegal, pursuant 

to section 9764, because the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 

("DOC") did not possess a written copy of his sentencing order. In Joseph, 

this Court found "none of the provisions in section 9764 indicate an 

affirmative obligation on the part of the DOC to maintain and produce the 

documents enumerated in subsection 9764(a) upon the request of the 

incarcerated person." Id. at 371. Moreover, the lower court determined 

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 authority to detain [the defendant]. We discern no abuse 

of discretion in the trial court's conclusion. 

Id. at 372 (emphasis added). 

Moreover, Joseph makes it clear that Graves' argument that the 

certified record is insufficient to confirm the legitimacy of his sentence is 

meritless. Id. at 372 (criminal docket provided by trial court and transcript 

of sentencing hearing are sufficient to confirm imposition, and legitimacy, of 

prisoner's sentence). The trial court properly reviewed the record and found 

Judge Glazer entered a valid sentence on June 30, 1995. Accordingly, the 

trial court properly dismissed Graves' petition. 

Order affirmed. 

-4 
J -S29012-17 

Judgment Entered. 

J ._,eph D. Seletyn, Es . Prothonotary 

Date: 5/8/2017 

-5