Court Opinion

ID: 9352548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 20:08:28.013618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:41.782359
License: Public Domain

J-S32010-22
J-S32011-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    LANCE GREEN                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1337 MDA 2021

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 14, 2021
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0001989-2011

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    LANCE GREEN                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1338 MDA 2021

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 14, 2021
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0002049-2011

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                          FILED JANUARY 06, 2023

       Lance Green appeals from the judgments of sentence 1 imposed

following the revocation of his probation. On appeal, we must determine

____________________________________________

1 Because these appeals have a substantially similar procedural history and
raise the same legal question, we consolidate them sua sponte and will
consider them together.
J-S32010-22

whether Green was denied his right to a speedy revocation of probation

hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 708. We conclude that Green was not

afforded a speedy revocation of probation hearing and was prejudiced as a

result. Accordingly, we vacate the judgments of sentence.

        In March 2012, Green entered a guilty plea to one count of possession

with intent to deliver a controlled substance at trial court docket No. 1989-

2011 (“PWID conviction”). The trial court imposed a sentence of 27 to 60

months in prison, followed by two years’ special probation. At trial court docket

No. 2049-2011, Green entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal use of a

communication facility (“CUCF conviction”). The trial court sentenced Green

to 18 to 36 months in prison, followed by two years’ special probation, to be

served consecutive to the sentence imposed for the PWID conviction. This

Court affirmed Green’s judgments of sentence. See Commonwealth v.

Green, 105 A.3d 36, 1353 MDA 2012 (Pa. Super. filed June 18, 2014)

(unpublished memorandum).

        In August 2014, Green filed a pro se petition for relief pursuant to the

Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)2 challenging the effectiveness of trial

counsel’s representation. The PCRA court granted Green’s petition in part,

vacating the sentence imposed for the CUCF conviction and resentencing

____________________________________________

2   See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                           -2-
J-S32010-22

Green to 3 years’ special probation, to be served consecutive to his sentence

for the PWID conviction.

      The ensuing procedural history is tortuous and, at times, contradictory.

Similarly, the certified record before us is not a model of clarity. On March 21,

2016, Green was released on parole for the PWID conviction. The maximum

sentence date for the PWID conviction was July 21, 2016, and Green’s

probationary term was to start immediately upon his completion of parole.

See Order to Release on Parole, 3/15/16. Green violated his parole in June

2016 by failing to report. The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“the

Board”) declared Green delinquent and notified the Lackawanna County

Probation Department (“the Department”). From the record, it is unclear

whether the Board issued a warrant for the parole violation.

      County Probation Officer Al Munley testified that, after receiving notice

from the Board that Green had absconded, the Department issued a capias

and bench warrant in July 2016. See N.T., 2/1/21, at 7. However, no capias

or bench warrant appears in the trial court dockets in July 2016. When asked

about this discrepancy, PO Munley represented that he had a copy of a 2016

bench warrant in his own case file, and it included the judge’s signature. See

                                      -3-
J-S32010-22

id. at 12-13.3 PO Munley vaguely attributed the lack of filing to a mistake in

the Clerk of Courts office. See id. at 13.

       Green remained at large. Then, in October 2016, Green was

apprehended in Snyder County. PO Munley stated,

       And I believe [Green] was picked up in Snyder County, I believe,
       he was at the Snyder County Prison in October of 2016. Due to a
       technical error, he was inadvertently released from there when
       the Parole Board took it upon themselves to get a lift order
       because they believed that the 60[-]month parole term had
       expired. Which it had, however, there was also our bench warrant
       had indicated that there was -- he was under supervision with our
       jurisdiction for the 5[-]year [s]pecial [p]robation portion of the
       sentence.

Id. at 7-8; see id. at 16 (wherein PO Munley testified that officials in Snyder

County contacted the Board’s parole agent). PO Munley maintains the Snyder

County Prison should have contacted the Department instead. See id. at 8.4

       In February 2018, Green was arrested by the United States Marshals

Service for unrelated federal firearms offenses. Green was held in the

____________________________________________

3 PO Munley’s copy of the purported July 2016 warrant is not included in the
certified record.

4 We observe that the record is somewhat ambiguous as to whether Green
was apprehended in Snyder County based on a parole warrant or a probation
warrant. Though the record does not reflect the filing of a bench warrant by
the Board, the trial court’s opinion states that Green was apprehended on a
Board retainer. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/22, at 4. By contrast, PO
Munley’s testimony suggests that he believed Green was apprehended based
on a bench warrant issued by the Department. See N.T., 2/1/21, at 14 (“I
believe he was picked up on it [the 2016 warrant].”), 16 (stating that the
Department initially issued the bench warrant).

                                           -4-
J-S32010-22

Lackawanna County Prison from February 2018 to June 2020.5 The

Department was unaware of Green’s incarceration at that time. See id. at 9.

       PO Munley testified that in July 2020, he received a “random phone call”

from a Pennsylvania State Police trooper who indicated that Green had arrived

at Snyder County Prison to retrieve personal property. See id. “And the

trooper had thought that maybe [Green] should have still been under

supervision, so he reached out to us.” Id. According to PO Munley, he asked

the trooper to direct Green to report to the Department. See id. Green did

not report. See id.

       On July 27, 2020, the Department issued a capias for Green’s arrest,

alleging that Green violated the probation condition requiring him to “comply

with Municipal, State and Federal criminal laws, as well as the provisions of

the Vehicle, Liquor and Welfare codes.” Capias, 7/27/20; see also N.T.,

2/1/21, at 10. The capias was docketed only under the CUCF conviction. Our

review of this document reveals that the docket number was correctly

identified for the CUCF conviction, No. 2049-2011, but the second trial court

docket number was misidentified as No. 1189-2011. The capias was re-issued

on August 7, 2020.

____________________________________________

5 Green was released from prison in June 2020 after the federal firearms
charges were withdrawn. The charges were later refiled, but Green was
released on his own recognizance. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/22, at 5.

                                           -5-
J-S32010-22

       The Department issued a bench warrant against Green for violation of

his probation. See Bench Warrant, 8/6/20; see also N.T., 2/1/21, at 10. The

bench warrant is docketed only at the PWID conviction, and the warrant itself

solely identifies the PWID conviction. Green was apprehended shortly

thereafter.6, 7

       Subsequently, on September 24, 2020, the Department filed a petition

charging Green with violations of his probation, alleging that Green violated

the conditions requiring him to comply with criminal laws and to report to his

probation officer. See Violation Petition, 9/24/20. The violation petition is

docketed only at the CUCF conviction, and again, misidentifies the second

docket as No. 1189-2011. See id. But see N.T., 2/1/21, at 10-11 (wherein

PO Munley testified that he intended to file the violation petition at both trial

court dockets).8

____________________________________________

6  While Green was being processed for intake at the Lackawanna County
Prison, corrections officers recovered marijuana, cocaine, and heroin on
Green’s person. As a result, Green was charged with several drug offenses at
trial court docket No. 1639-2020. Green’s appeal relating to these drug
offenses is docketed in this Court at 1339 MDA 2021.

7In its opinion, the trial court states that it held a Gagnon I hearing on August
31, 2020. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). Neither docket
contains an indication that Green was notified of this hearing or a notation
that the hearing took place. However, Green does not contest this, except to
note that the Gagnon I hearing notice only identified No. the PWID conviction.

8 We observe that the capias, bench warrant, and violation petition were
absent from the certified record. Despite the fact that it was Green’s duty to
provide this Court with a complete record, our Prothonotary made efforts to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-S32010-22

        The trial court conducted a hearing on February 1, 2021. The transcripts

from the hearing, titled Omnibus Hearing, identifies the probation revocation

docket numbers, as well as No. 1639-2020.9 At the start of the hearing, the

assistant district attorney stated the parties were to discuss the omnibus

pretrial motions Green had filed at No. 1639-2020. See N.T., 2/1/21, at 3.

However, we observe that the arguments Green advanced in his motion to

suppress in No. 1639-2020 are based on the arguments he presents herein.

Further, the trial court addressed Green’s pretrial motion and found him in

violation of his probation in the same order. See Order, 6/8/21.

        On September 14, 2021, the trial court revoked Green’s probation at

both underlying trial court dockets. Under the CUCF conviction, the trial court

sentenced Green to 18 to 36 months in prison, followed by 2 years’ probation.

Additionally, under the PWID conviction, the trial court sentenced Green to a

consecutive term of 2 years’ probation. The trial court directed both revocation

sentences to be served consecutive to the new sentence imposed at No. 1639-

2020.

____________________________________________

locate the missing materials. See Commonwealth v. Bongiorno, 905 A.2d
998, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that “the ultimate responsibility of
ensuring that the transmitted record is complete rests squarely upon the
appellant and not upon the appellate courts.”). Following our Prothonotary’s
inquiry, the trial court supplemented the record and amended the dockets.

9 The hearing transcripts were also not made part of the original certified
record. The trial court supplemented the record based on our Prothonotary’s
inquiry.

                                           -7-
J-S32010-22

       Green filed an untimely “nunc pro tunc” post-sentence motion listing all

three docket numbers. Green did not seek permission to file a nunc pro tunc

post-sentence motion, nor did the trial court expressly grant reconsideration.

Notwithstanding, Green filed timely notices of appeal from the court’s

imposition of his revocation sentences.

       In both appeals, Green claims the trial court failed to conduct a speedy

revocation hearing, in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 708. Green points to the fact

that the Department did not file the violation petition until approximately 4

years after the violations occurred, and approximately 2 years after his

supervision expired pursuant to his PWID conviction.10

       Our review of a judgment of sentence imposed following a probation

revocation is limited to the validity of the proceedings, the legality of the

sentence,     and     the    discretionary     aspects   of   the   sentence.   See

Commonwealth v. Wright, 116 A.3d 133, 136 (Pa. Super. 2015).

       Green’s claim requires us to consider the timeliness of his revocation

hearing. The pertinent part of Rule 708, governing hearings for violations of

probation, provides as follows:

       Rule 708. Violation of Probation, Intermediate Punishment,
       or Parole: Hearing and Disposition

                                          ***
____________________________________________

10 In his appellate brief for the appeal from the revocation under his PWID
conviction, Green also raises a due process claim arising from the delayed
revocation hearing. Based on our disposition of the Rule 708 claims, we need
not reach this issue.

                                           -8-
J-S32010-22

       (B) Whenever a defendant has been sentenced to probation or
       intermediate punishment, or placed on parole, the judge shall not
       revoke such probation, intermediate punishment, or parole as
       allowed by law unless there has been:

          (1) a hearing held as speedily as possible at which the
          defendant is present and represented by counsel; and

          (2) a finding of record that the defendant violated a condition
          of probation, intermediate punishment, or parole.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(B).

             The language “speedily as possible” has been interpreted to
       require a hearing within a reasonable time. Rule 708 does not
       establish a presumptive period in which the Commonwealth must
       revoke probation; but instead, the question is whether the delay
       was reasonable under the circumstances of the specific case and
       whether the appellant was prejudiced by the delay. …

             In evaluating the reasonableness of a delay, the court
       examines three factors: the length of the delay; the reasons for
       the delay; and the prejudice resulting from the delay. The court
       must analyze the circumstances surrounding the delay to
       determine if the Commonwealth acted with diligence in scheduling
       the revocation hearing. Prejudice in this context compromises the
       loss of essential witnesses or evidence, the absence of which
       would obfuscate the determination of whether probation was
       violated, or unnecessary restraint of personal liberty.

Commonwealth v. Woods, 965 A.2d 1225, 1227-28 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(citation omitted).

       Even in cases where, as here, the revocation proceedings take place

after the natural expiration of the probationary period,11 a defendant may be

____________________________________________

11We note that if Green had been found delinquent on his parole and probation
sentences after a reasonably speedy hearing, he would have received no credit
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -9-
J-S32010-22

sentenced “if the revocation is based on a violation which occurred within the

probationary period.” Wright, 116 A.3d at 137. Nevertheless, “the probation

must be revoked and the sentence must be imposed within a reasonable time

after the expiration of the probationary period.” Id.

       Instantly, Green entered guilty pleas for the underlying cases in March

2012. On March 21, 2016, Green was released on parole for the PWID

conviction, with a maximum parole sentence date of July 21, 2016. The

probationary terms were to start immediately upon completion of parole.

Therefore, the probation term imposed for the PWID conviction expired in July

2018. See N.T., 2/1/21, at 16-17.

       Because Green absconded from parole supervision and failed to report

at the start of his probationary term, the failure to report violation occurred in

July 2016. PO Munley was aware that Green had absconded from parole in

June 2016 and was immediately aware that Green did not report for the start

of probation. See Commonwealth v. Stancil, 524 A.2d 505, 506-07 (Pa.

Super. 1987) (explaining that “revocation hearings must be held with

reasonable promptness after a probation officer is chargeable with knowing

that probation has been violated”).

____________________________________________

for the time he was delinquent. See Commonwealth v. Ortega, 995 A.2d
879, 885 (Pa. Super. 2010), disapproved of on other grounds,
Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d 1240, 1251 (Pa. 2019). However, in
the absence of a court finding of a violation rendered after a reasonably
speedy hearing, there are only allegations of delinquency. We cannot accept
the Commonwealth’s allegations as fact in the absence of such a hearing.

                                          - 10 -
J-S32010-22

      Green was apprehended and arrested on August 17, 2020, and the

Department filed the violation of probation petition the following day. The trial

court held a violation of probation hearing on February 1, 2021. Accordingly,

the trial court conducted the revocation hearing more than 4 years after the

initial violation and more than 2 years after Green’s probationary term at No.

1989-2011 had expired. We conclude that such a lengthy delay is not

intrinsically reasonable. See Commonwealth v. Christmas, 995 A.2d 1259,

1263 (Pa. Super. 2010) (reviewing cases and noting that “[t]his Court has

previously held delays of fifteen months, two years, and four years are not

‘intrinsically reasonable.’” (citations omitted)).

      We must next consider the reasons for the delay. “When examining the

reasons for the delay, the court looks at the circumstances surrounding the

delay to determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence in

scheduling the revocation hearing.” Christmas, 995 A.2d at 1263. The

Commonwealth attributes the delay to Green’s “inadvertent” release from

Snyder County Prison without notice to the Department, Green’s failure to

report after a state trooper in Snyder County contacted the Department, and

Green’s incarceration due to federal charges. The trial court accepted the

Commonwealth’s explanation. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/2/22, at 11.

      However, upon review, we conclude the Commonwealth did not

sufficiently establish that the lengthy delay in holding the revocation hearing

was reasonable. Through the testimony of PO Munley, the Commonwealth

                                      - 11 -
J-S32010-22

essentially shifts blame, in part, to Snyder County Prison officials for failing to

notify the Department of Green’s whereabouts. However, the Commonwealth

ignores the fact that the difficulty in locating Green when he was first held in

Snyder County was largely an issue of their own creation. As we explained

above, neither a capias nor a bench warrant was filed in 2016, and the

relevant dockets reflect multiple breakdowns in filing necessary documents

throughout the course of this matter. Without a bench warrant present on the

dockets or in the certified record, we cannot agree that Snyder County Prison

bore the responsibility of notifying the Department.

      Additionally, the Commonwealth states it was unaware that Green was

incarcerated in the Lackawanna County Prison, less than 2 miles away from

the Department office, for approximately two-and-a-half years for federal

firearms charges. The Commonwealth makes no assertion that PO Munley

actively attempted to locate Green during that time period. Indeed, the

Department did not issue another bench warrant until August 2020. Finally,

we note that in July 2020, Green in fact was in the presence of a state trooper

and the Department did not have Green arrested, presumably due to the lack

of an official warrant on the file for the trooper to rely upon.

      Under these circumstances, we find that the Commonwealth did not act

with due diligence in scheduling the revocation hearing. See Stancil, 524 A.2d

at 507 (evaluating a speedy revocation hearing claim under then-Rule 1409

where appellant’s probation was revoked for failing to report and failing to

                                      - 12 -
J-S32010-22

make restitution, and concluding that the Commonwealth offered no

explanation for the delay beyond appellant’s incarceration during a portion of

the relevant time); see also Christmas, 995 A.2d at 1263 (“[W]here the

Commonwealth provides no explanation for the delay, the court should not

attribute the delay to the defendant; instead, the court should analyze

whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.”); Woods, 965 A.2d at 1228

(proceeding to prejudice prong where a 9-month delay was not explained).

      Finally, we consider whether Green was prejudiced by the delay. “There

is no per se rule of prejudice for technical violations of the Rules of Criminal

Procedure.” Christmas, 995 A.2d at 1263. Generally, our Court has

interpreted prejudice as “something which would detract from the probative

value and reliability of the facts considered, vitiating the reliability of the

outcome itself.” Id. (citation omitted). Prejudice may also result from the loss

of witnesses or evidence as a result of the delay. See id.; Woods, 965 at

1228. However, this Court has also held that “in cases where probation

revocation hearings are not held until after the expiration of the probationary

term, a certain amount of prejudice necessarily follows from the fact of the

expiration of that probation.” Stancil, 524 A.2d at 507.

      We find that Green was presumptively prejudiced by this protracted

delay, where his probationary term pursuant to the PWID conviction expired

in July 2018, approximately two years before he was arrested on the only valid

bench warrant issued in this case, and nearly two-and-a-half years before the

                                     - 13 -
J-S32010-22

revocation hearing. See Wright, 116 A.3d at 139 (concluding that appellant

was presumptively prejudiced by a delay of 4 years following the probation

violation, and the hearing occurred two-and-a-half years after her probation

ended). We acknowledge that Green’s probationary term for the CUCF

conviction did not expire prior to the revocation hearing; however, the alleged

violation was based Green’s failure to report in 2016. Moreover, we conclude

that prejudice resulted from the delay because at the time of the revocation

hearing, the trial court was also able to consider the federal charges filed in

2018. See Order, 6/8/21 (referring to the federal offenses in support of its

reasons for finding Green in violation of probation). Had the initial bench

warrant been properly filed in 2016, Green ostensibly could have been

apprehended before he was detained on the federal charges. See Wright,

116 A.2d at 139 (finding prejudice where a 4-year delay in conducting the

revocation hearing affected the trial court’s revocation sentence because it

considered subsequent convictions).

      In sum, we conclude that the delay of more than four years following

the violation for failure to report was unreasonable and not solely attributable

to Green. Additionally, Green was prejudiced both because his probationary

term for the PWID conviction had expired more than two years prior to the

revocation hearing, and because the delay permitted the trial court to consider

additional violations. Therefore, Green’s right to a speedy revocation hearing

                                     - 14 -
J-S32010-22

under Rule 708 was violated, and we must vacate the judgments of sentence

imposed following the revocation of his probation.

     Judgments of sentence vacated. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/06/2023

                                   - 15 -