Com. v. Begnoche, P.
Com. v. Begnoche, P. No. 1638 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Paul Joseph Begnoche pled nolo contendere on December 5, 2011, to rape of a child and other sexual offenses against his minor daughter and was sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years’ probation.
- Begnoche did not pursue direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on January 4, 2012 (expiration of time to file direct appeal).
- He filed multiple pro se PCRA petitions: first on November 8, 2012 (denied and affirmed), and several subsequent, serial petitions while prior petitions/appeals were pending.
- On January 7, 2016 Begnoche filed a fourth PCRA petition; the PCRA court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction on September 14, 2016 because it was untimely and filed while an earlier PCRA appeal remained pending.
- Begnoche appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal on April 19, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fourth PCRA petition was timely | Begnoche argued his claims merited review (implied timeliness or exception) | Commonwealth contended the petition was filed more than one year after finality and thus untimely | Petition untimely; judgment final Jan. 4, 2012; petition filed Jan. 7, 2016, so untimely |
| Whether Begnoche pleaded a statutory timeliness exception | Begnoche claimed grounds that could invoke an exception (implicitly) | Commonwealth said no cognizable exception (government interference, newly discovered facts, or new retroactive constitutional right) was pled or proven | No timeliness exception pleaded or proven; exceptions not satisfied |
| Whether filing a subsequent PCRA petition while an earlier PCRA appeal was pending divests court of jurisdiction | Begnoche proceeded while prior petition/appeal unresolved | Commonwealth argued a pending appeal of an earlier PCRA petition deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to consider a later petition | Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the fourth petition because an earlier PCRA appeal was still pending (Lark rule) |
| Whether the court could reach the merits despite procedural defects | Begnoche sought substantive relief | Commonwealth maintained court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and cannot reach merits | Court declined to reach merits and affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roy Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness is jurisdictional in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Michael Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (one-year filing rule and 60-day requirement for timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (trial court lacks jurisdiction over subsequent PCRA petition filed while appeal of prior petition is pending)