Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-16-2024
Case Style:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Otto Paxton
Case Number: CP-09-CF-000231-2012
Judge:
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Plaintiff's Attorney: Bucks County, Pennsylvania, District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Doylestown, Pennsylvania post-conviction release criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.
In April 2012, a jury convicted Paxton of possession of firearm with manufacturer number altered, possession of a prohibited offensive weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia.[1] The trial court convicted Paxton of persons not to possess firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). The trial court sentenced Paxton to an aggregate sentence of 12½ to 25 years' imprisonment. Paxton filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which was denied by operation of law.
In November 2023, Paxton filed his fifth PCRA petition. Paxton maintained that he had been led to believe he would be paroled after his minimum term of imprisonment if he maintained good behavior. He also alleged that the parole board member who interviewed him led him to believe that the agent believed he had been in physical possession of a firearm at the time of the crime, there was no reason that he should not be granted parole, and the court has the power to amend mistakes of court officers. He further stated he was entitled to reinstatement of his August 2012 motion for reconsideration of sentence because a scheduled hearing had been canceled and not rescheduled before the motion was administratively denied.
The PCRA court entered a notice of intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Paxton filed a response again alleging that the November 2012 hearing on his post-sentence motion was canceled and not rescheduled before the court administratively denied the petition. He further stated the November 2023 petition should be deemed timely filed because it was filed within one year of his denial of parole in September 2023. He claimed the Parole Board mistakenly believed he was in possession of a firearm, which he argues was a patent clerical error that the trial court could modify at any time.
* * *
Outcome: Plaintiff's petition for post-conviction for relief was denied.
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: