Com. v. Barker, T.
Com. v. Barker, T. No. 3482 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 28, 2017Background
- Terrence Barker was convicted in 2008 of two counts of rape, burglary, and criminal trespass and sentenced to an aggregate 14 to 40 years.
- Trial counsel stipulated to chain-of-custody for a knife and to the victim’s medical records; counsel later learned additional discovery that might have undercut those stipulations.
- Barker pursued direct appeals and post-conviction relief; a PCRA petition restored his right to seek allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court denied review, making his judgment final on January 23, 2012.
- Barker filed multiple PCRA petitions; a prior PCRA (filed 2012) was litigated and denied; the present petition was filed pro se on September 6, 2016, challenging sentence legality and alleging prosecutorial misconduct for withholding evidence.
- The PCRA court gave Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed Barker’s 2016 petition as untimely; Barker appealed the dismissal.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the 2016 petition was untimely under the one-year PCRA filing rule and Barker failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barker) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Barker argued his claims (illegal sentence, withheld evidence) justify relief despite delay | The Commonwealth and courts argued the petition was filed well after the one-year PCRA deadline and no exception was pleaded or proved | Dismissed as untimely: conviction final Jan 23, 2012; 2016 petition barred absent timely exception |
| Applicability of PCRA exceptions (governmental interference or newly discovered facts) | Barker claimed prosecutorial misconduct and withheld evidence (rape kit, medical report) that would show consensual sex | Court required pleading/proof of statutory exceptions within 60 days of discovery; Barker did not satisfy burden | Exceptions not established; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Legality of sentence claim as timeliness escape | Barker asserted his sentence exceeded lawful maximum, seeking review as a non-waivable legality claim | Court noted his sentencing misunderstanding and that legality claims still must meet PCRA time limits unless timely pleaded | Claim did not avoid time bar; Fahy requires timeliness for legality claims |
| Waiver and preservation of issues | Barker raised new arguments on appeal (prosecutorial misconduct, factual narrative) not raised or preserved below | Commonwealth and trial court pointed to prior appeals, Rule 1925(b) obligations, and PCRA waiver rules | Issues either previously litigated, waived, or forfeited for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (petitioner must plead and prove statutory PCRA time-bar exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely PCRA petitions absent an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa. Super. 2003) (nunc pro tunc direct appeal restored by a prior PCRA counts as first PCRA for timeliness)