Com. v. Ayandele, A.
750 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Appellant Anthony Ayandele was convicted in 2003 of third-degree murder and unlawful firearms possession and sentenced to an aggregate 20–40 years.
- Direct appeal was resolved against Ayandele; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2004.
- Ayandele filed a timely PCRA petition in 2005; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and the petition was denied in 2007; this Court affirmed in 2009.
- In August 2015 Ayandele filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (transferred to criminal court), which the court treated as a PCRA petition; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw.
- Ayandele raised claims that he lacked sufficient notice of the murder charge and that the court lacked statutory authority to imprison him; the trial court dismissed the petition as untimely under the PCRA on April 7, 2016.
- Ayandele appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was barred by the PCRA one‑year time limit and Ayandele did not plead a timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 petition should be treated as a PCRA petition | Ayandele captioned filing as habeas corpus but sought relief cognizable under PCRA | Commonwealth/court: statutes and precedent require treating collateral challenges to convictions/sentences as PCRA petitions | Court: Treat petition as a PCRA petition (PCRA is sole means for such collateral relief) |
| Whether the petition was timely under the PCRA | Ayandele did not contend timeliness or assert an exception | Commonwealth argued petition filed in 2015 was filed more than one year after judgment became final (final Jan 4, 2005) | Court: Petition is untimely and jurisdictionally barred under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) |
| Whether Ayandele’s notice and sentencing statutory‑authority claims avoid time bar | Ayandele argued insufficient notice of charges and lack of statutory authority to imprison | Commonwealth: these claims are cognizable under the PCRA but still subject to the PCRA’s timing requirements | Court: Claims are cognizable under PCRA but barred for failure to satisfy timeliness or an exception |
| Whether counsel properly filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and withdrew | Ayandele responded pro se to Rule 907 notice; counsel sought withdrawal after review | Court: counsel’s Turner/Finley procedure followed; court granted withdrawal when petition dismissed | Court: Counsel’s request to withdraw granted alongside dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ayandele, 849 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2004) (prior direct‑appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Ayandele, 970 A.2d 463 (Pa. Super. 2009) (prior PCRA appeal affirming denial of relief)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA is the exclusive means for collateral relief challenging convictions/sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural guidance regarding counsel’s withdrawal when filing no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural framework for no‑merit letters and counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (collateral attacks on murder convictions fall within PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (challenges to legality of sentence must be raised in PCRA and satisfy its timeliness rules)