×

Inmate granted the chance to challenge conviction

Court: Garland was denied right to review after sentence

A Cambria County woman serving a state prison sentence on drug charges has been granted a new opportunity to challenge her conviction, according to a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision issued late last week.

Salina M. Garland, 39, is an inmate in the State Correctional Institution at Muncy, but since her March 15, 2017, conviction on charges of possession with intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, and criminal use of a communication facility, she has been attempting to appeal her case.

Nine days after she was sentenced to a prison term of 16 to 120 months by Cambria Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III, Garland, on her own, filed what she termed a petition under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Hearing Act.

She sought a new trial based on what she contended was “false evidence” used against her, insufficient evidence, and she considered her prison sentence “excessive.”

At the time, according to the Superior Court decision, she was represented by an assistant Public Defender, John Lovette, but upon Garland’s filing of her PCRA, the judge appointed another attorney to represent her, Francis Wymard.

Wymard on Aug. 10, 2017, filed a petition to withdraw his representation because Garland’s petition had “no merit.”

Wymard was allowed to withdraw, and Garland’s petition was rejected without a hearing.

Despite no longer being Garland’s attorney, Wymard, according to the Superior Court opinion, “inexplicably” filed a notice of appeal and Ebensburg attorney Timothy S. Burns was appointed to assist in that appeal.

On Dec. 11, 2017, Burns filed a petition asking Garland’s initial appeal rights be reinstated.

It was denied, and Burns asked for a review by the Superior Court.

The question presented to the state appeals court was whether the dismissal of the defense petition to reinstate Garland’s appeal rights was proper.

The Superior Court panel that included former Supreme Court Justice Correale F. Stevens and Judges Jacqueline O. Shogan and Alice B. Dubow, immediately questioned the designation of Garland’s initial appeal — the one she wrote on her own — as a legitimate post conviction petition.

In the opinion written by Stevens, the panel pointed out that a post-conviction petition does not apply until a sentence becomes final, and on June 9, 2017, when Garland filed her petition, her sentence was not yet final — meaning the date for initial review of the conviction had not expired.

Garland’s petition was filed within nine days of sentencing, it was pointed out.

She had 10 days after sentencing to file her initial challenge to her conviction and sentence.

The fact that she filed her own petition at a time she was supposedly represented by an assistant public defender raised the specter that Garland had been “effectively abandoned” by her attorney, the appeals court stated.

It stated, “Here, following sentencing, we note with displeasure that Assistant Public Defender Lovette did not file motions on behalf of (Garland), and he never sought permission to withdraw his representation.”

The court ruled that Garland had been denied her right to post-sentence review and vacated an April 3, 2018, court order denying Burns’ request to reinstate Garland’s post sentence rights.

The order means Burns can now file post-sentence motions on behalf of Garland — more than 20 months after her sentencing.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today