Com. v. Bond, L.
3364 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Londell Bond was convicted by jury (April 2005) of second-degree murder, robbery (merged for sentencing), and PIC; sentenced to life plus concurrent term for PIC.
- Direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review concluded in 2008; judgment became final on October 28, 2008 (time for certiorari expired).
- Bond filed a timely first PCRA (2008); it was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal (2012).
- Bond filed a second PCRA petition pro se on August 20, 2012, and an amended petition on April 3, 2015 raising, among other things, that his prior PCRA counsel was ineffective due to mental-health issues.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second PCRA as untimely on October 4, 2016; Bond appealed and proceeded pro se to the Superior Court.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the second PCRA untimely and that Bond failed to prove a statutory exception (newly discovered facts) within the 60-day rule.
Issues
| Issue | Bond's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bond's second PCRA was timely or saved by an exception | Counsel’s mental-health revelations were newly discovered facts that excuse untimeliness | Information about counsel’s issues was publicly available earlier; Bond did not plead within 60 days | Court held petition untimely and exception not met; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Bond exercised due diligence in discovering counsel’s issues | Bond implicitly contends he could not have discovered earlier | Commonwealth shows public disclosures Oct 2012 and Nov 13, 2014 disciplinary order; Bond was named in proceedings | Court held Bond could have discovered facts sooner and failed to file within 60 days |
| Whether Superior Court may reach merits despite timing defect | Bond seeks merits review of ineffective assistance claim | Commonwealth asserts jurisdictional time bar prevents merits review | Court declined to reach merits because of jurisdictional untimeliness |
| Whether PCRA court had jurisdiction to hear untimely petition | Bond argues underlying claim merits review | Commonwealth invokes jurisdictional limits of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 | Court affirmed that untimely petitions deprive PCRA court of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (reviewing PCRA procedural standards)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (scope of appellate review of PCRA rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court fact findings)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (petitioners must plead and prove 60-day exception facts)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (disciplinary orders are public records)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction over untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional effect of PCRA time limits)