Com. v. Austin, R.
2254 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Robert Austin was convicted in 1994 of first-degree murder and robbery and sentenced to life plus 10–20 years; his conviction became final on April 26, 1999.
- Austin filed multiple PCRA petitions: first in 2000 (dismissed in 2001 after counsel filed a Turner/Finley letter), second in 2004 (dismissed as untimely), a motion for DNA testing in 2005 (denied), third in 2007 (dismissed as untimely), and a fourth in 2014 (amended March 2014).
- The PCRA court dismissed the fourth petition on June 16, 2015 as facially untimely and Austin appealed; the court did not issue a Rule 907 notice but Austin waived that claim.
- Austin’s fourth petition argued trial/appellate counsel were ineffective and that his fourth petition should be treated as an extension of his first PCRA petition, seeking leave to file a nunc pro tunc direct appeal.
- Under the PCRA, a petition must be filed within one year of finality of the judgment, with only three narrow exceptions; petitions invoking an exception must be filed within 60 days of when the claim could be presented.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding Austin did not plead any statutory timeliness exception and that ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse the PCRA time-bar.
Issues
| Issue | Austin's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fourth PCRA petition was timely / whether exceptions apply | The petition should relate back to the timely first PCRA and counsel’s Turner/Finley filing was ineffective, thus permitting nunc pro tunc appeal | The petition is facially untimely; Austin did not plead any §9545(b) exception | Petition untimely; no §9545(b) exception proven, dismissal affirmed |
| Whether ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel can excuse PCRA time-bar | Counsel’s Finley letter abandoned meritorious claims; this ineffectiveness should overcome timeliness | Ineffective assistance does not satisfy the statutory time‑bar exceptions | Ineffective assistance claim insufficient to overcome jurisdictional timeliness requirement |
| Whether omission of Rule 907 notice required reversal | Not argued as timely objection by Austin | Omission waived because Austin did not object; even without notice, relief denied where time-bar not met | Rule 907 omission waived; lack of notice not a basis for relief here |
| Whether relief to file nunc pro tunc direct appeal was warranted | Requested nunc pro tunc direct appeal as remedy for counsel’s alleged abandonment | Remedy inappropriate absent timeliness exception or merit on exceptions | Nunc pro tunc relief denied because petition untimely and exceptions not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA timeliness/jurisdictional rule)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 916 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness requirement is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA timeliness principles)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse PCRA time-bar)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 907 notice considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (failure to provide Rule 907 notice not a ground for relief where time-bar not met)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (finality occurs after 90 days for certiorari timing)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for attorney’s no‑merit letter)