Com. v. Banks, A.
Com. v. Banks, A. No. 1264 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- In 1999 Anthony Vincent Banks pleaded nolo contendere to third-degree murder (Info A), aggravated assault (Info D), and possession of a firearm without a license (Info H). He received 17–40 years on the murder count; 5–10 years consecutive on the aggravated assault count; and 1–2 years concurrent on the firearm count. The murder and aggravated assault involved different victims.
- Banks did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; his conviction became final in May 1999.
- Banks filed earlier PCRA petitions in 2000 and 2002, both denied and appeals exhausted.
- In December 2015 Banks filed a pro se motion titled "Motion to Modify And/Or Correct An Illegal Sentence Due to a Violation of the Merger Doctrine," which the court treated as a PCRA petition (his third).
- The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss as untimely and dismissed the petition on March 28, 2016. Banks appealed pro se, arguing his sentence was illegal (merger), the court imposed an unrequested mandatory minimum, illegality cannot be waived, and his sentence was excessive.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was facially untimely and Banks failed to plead any statutory exception to the PCRA one-year time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Banks: legality-of-sentence claims are not subject to AEDPA/PCRA time limits; court retains jurisdiction to hear illegal-sentence claims at any time | Commonwealth/PCRA ct.: PCRA jurisdiction is time-limited; untimely petitions must meet §9545(b)(1) exceptions | Court: Petition was untimely (filed 2015; judgment final 1999); Banks did not establish any timing exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Illegality via merger doctrine (aggravated assault into murder) | Banks: aggravated assault should have merged into third-degree murder, rendering sentence illegal | Commonwealth: substantive merger claim still must satisfy PCRA timeliness rules; claim not preserved within exceptions | Court: Did not reach merits because claim was time-barred |
| Mandatory minimum sentence not requested by Commonwealth | Banks: sentence included a mandatory minimum that the Commonwealth did not seek, making it illegal | Commonwealth: procedural/timeliness objection; claim must meet PCRA exceptions | Court: Claim not considered on merits due to untimeliness |
| Sentencing excessiveness / nonwaivable review | Banks: challenge to legality/discretionary aspects of sentence cannot be waived and should be reviewed | Commonwealth: same timeliness response; legality claims still subject to time limits | Court: Reiterated legality-of-sentence claims are reviewable but must meet PCRA timing; Banks failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Commonwealth, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timeliness requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence review via PCRA still requires compliance with PCRA time limits)
- Whitney v. Commonwealth, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA court precluded from considering untimely petitions absent statutory exception)
- Wilson v. Commonwealth, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals — supported by record and free of legal error)
- Copenhefer v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (one-year filing rule and reference to §9545 timing exceptions)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (judgment becomes final at conclusion of direct review or expiration of time to seek review)
- Johnston v. Commonwealth, 42 A.3d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove applicability of §9545(b)(1) exceptions)