Commonwealth v. Baker

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the denial of Phillip B. Baker’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Baker challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania statutes governing involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child and the tolling of limitations periods for sexual offenses against minors. The court held that although the petition sought habeas corpus relief rather than PCRA relief, Baker failed to exhaust available judicial remedies because he did not raise the constitutional claims before or during trial, in post-sentence proceedings, or on direct appeal.

Holdings

1. A post-conviction petition challenging the validity of criminal statutes as unconstitutionally vague or as violating ex post facto prohibitions seeks habeas corpus relief, rather than relief under the PCRA, when it does not challenge the trial court's authority to impose the conviction or sentence.
2. Baker's constitutional claims were not cognizable under habeas corpus because he failed to exhaust available judicial remedies before filing his habeas petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Baker's petition challenging criminal statutes as unconstitutionally vague and as violating ex post facto prohibitions sought habeas corpus relief rather than relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act.
2. Whether Baker's constitutional claims were cognizable in habeas corpus despite his failure to raise them during trial, in post-sentence proceedings, or on direct appeal.
3. Whether the trial court's order denying post-conviction relief should be affirmed.

Disposition

affirmed