Com. v. Briscoe, R.
651 WDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 31, 2017Background
- In Nov. 2009 Briscoe was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and related offenses; sentenced to life plus 14–28 years in Dec. 2009.
- This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in 2012; Briscoe did not seek review in the PA Supreme Court, so his judgment became final in April 2012.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Briscoe (pro se) filed a one-paragraph PCRA petition on Dec. 3, 2010; he was represented by counsel at that time.
- On Apr. 5, 2016 Briscoe filed a pro se PCRA petition (styled as an amendment/supplement to the 2010 filing) alleging appellate counsel failed to seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the 2016 petition was untimely; the court treated the 2010 filing as a nullity (premature and filed while counsel represented Briscoe).
- The PCRA court denied relief on Aug. 25, 2016; this appeal challenges the court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction due to untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the 2016 petition despite the one-year time bar | Briscoe: 2016 petition is an amendment/supplement to the 2010 petition, so it relates back and is timely | Commonwealth/PCRA court: 2016 petition filed well after one-year deadline; 2010 petition was a nullity and cannot toll or serve as a basis to amend | Held: No jurisdiction—2016 petition is untimely and not saved by the 2010 filing |
| Whether a PCRA petition filed while a direct appeal is pending can later be treated as a timely base for amendment | Briscoe: a premature petition that was never ruled on can be revived after direct appeal | Commonwealth: PCRA law does not permit reviving or treating a later untimely petition as an extension of a premature petition | Held: A petition filed while direct appeal pending is a nullity and cannot be the basis for later amendment |
| Whether counseled defendant’s pro se PCRA filing tolls timeliness or is actionable | Briscoe: his pro se 2010 filing should have been held in abeyance and later acted upon | Commonwealth: hybrid filings by a represented defendant have no legal effect; trial court must ignore pro se filings when counsel is present | Held: Pro se filing by represented defendant is null and does not toll or preserve timeliness |
| Whether equitable or non‑textual exceptions can overcome the PCRA time bar | Briscoe: requests court to treat petition as timely via equitable reasoning/amendment theory | Commonwealth: PCRA’s timeliness is jurisdictional; courts cannot create ad hoc exceptions | Held: Court rejected equitable/extension/amendment theories; only statutory exceptions apply and none were invoked |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (rejecting non‑textual exceptions to PCRA time bar and disapproving "extension" theory)
- Commonwealth v. Rienzi, 827 A.2d 369 (Pa. 2003) (second untimely PCRA petition cannot be treated as amendment to earlier petition)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (courts must refer pro se filings of represented defendants to counsel; hybrid representation is not allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Leslie, 757 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2000) (distinguishable authority on premature PCRA petitions addressed before loss of trial court jurisdiction)