Com. v. Anderson, K.
542 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Khalid Anderson was convicted of third-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and sentenced to 26–52 years. Convictions stemmed from a drug-transaction killing where a co-conspirator later implicated Anderson as the shooter.
- Anderson filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2008; appointed counsel filed an amended petition then a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 “no-merit” letter and petition to withdraw. The PCRA court dismissed the petition in March 2010 after Anderson did not respond; Anderson filed a notice of appeal late (May 13, 2010).
- This Court previously quashed Anderson’s first PCRA appeal as untimely, finding he had received adequate notice of his rights and simply failed to act promptly.
- Anderson filed a second PCRA petition in January 2013 seeking nunc pro tunc reinstatement of his first PCRA appeal rights, alleging court/DO C mail problems and later-discovered recantations by co-conspirators; he also raised sentencing and sufficiency/merger claims and sought DNA testing.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as patently untimely; Anderson appealed pro se, arguing the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and that timeliness exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Anderson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdiction of second PCRA petition | Court mail/transfer problems and co-conspirators’ recantations excuse the one-year time bar; seeks nunc pro tunc relief | Petition is untimely; Anderson failed to plead or prove any statutory exception in the PCRA court | Dismissal affirmed: petition untimely; Anderson failed to raise exceptions below and cannot raise them first on appeal |
| Newly discovered fact (recantation) exception | Recantation statements from co-conspirators are newly discovered facts that trigger §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Claims were not pleaded or litigated in the PCRA court; cannot be raised first on appeal | Rejected: claim waived for failure to plead below; court would find lack of due diligence if considered |
| Discretionary aspects / legality of sentence (merger) | Consecutive sentence improper because co-conspirator was actual perpetrator; merger should apply | Even claims attacking legality of sentence must satisfy PCRA timeliness or an exception | Not reviewed on merits due to timeliness bar |
| Denial of due process re: Rule 907 notice in first PCRA | Lack of proper Rule 907 notice prevented timely appeal, constituting government interference | Record shows counsel’s withdrawal and Rule 907 notice were properly served; appellate court already rejected this claim | Rejected: prior appeal found Anderson had adequate notice; government-interference exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Wojtaszek v. Commonwealth, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Marshall v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (burden to make prima facie showing of miscarriage for successive PCRA relief)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
- Beasley v. Commonwealth, 741 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (petitioner must plead and prove timeliness exceptions in the petition)
- Liebensperger v. Commonwealth, 904 A.2d 40 (Pa. Super. 2006) (timeliness exceptions must be specifically pleaded)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 980 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2009) (new legal theories cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness applies to sentencing claims)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (distinguishing newly discovered facts from newly discovered sources)