Com. v. Brown, C.
137 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- Appellant Charles Rashawn Brown pled guilty on October 23, 2008 to aggravated assault, conspiracy, firearms without a license, and possession of an instrument of crime; sentence: 5–10 years imprisonment plus 7 years probation per plea agreement.
- No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed; the judgment became final on November 24, 2008.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition mailed May 18, 2012 (prisoner mailbox rule); petition was therefore untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and moved to withdraw; the PCRA court gave notice of proposed dismissal, received no response, and dismissed the petition on December 14, 2015.
- Appellant appealed pro se; the Superior Court reviewed only timeliness and exceptions to PCRA filing deadlines and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely | Brown contends his sentence is illegal and not subject to PCRA time limits | Commonwealth argues petition was filed after the one‑year deadline and no exception applies | Petition is untimely; no exception pleaded or proven, dismissal affirmed |
| Applicability of PCRA timeliness exceptions | Brown implies sentence illegality excuses timeliness | Commonwealth cites Fahy: legality claims still must meet PCRA time limits or an exception | Court rejects argument; Fahy controls and petition still required to be timely |
| Effect of prisoner mailbox rule on filing date | Brown relies on prison mailing date (May 18, 2012) | Commonwealth accepts mailbox rule but notes it does not cure untimeliness | Mailbox rule governs filing date but petition remains untimely |
| Adequacy of pro se brief and procedural compliance | Brown appealed pro se with a deficient brief | Commonwealth notes procedural defects and invokes rules; court may quash | Court notes deficiencies but declines to quash; addresses timeliness on merits and affirms |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discusses prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (authority on counsel withdrawing with a no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for court review of no‑merit letters)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (timeliness review standard for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no jurisdiction for untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (court may address merits despite defective pro se brief)