Com. v. Brown, M.
Com. v. Brown, M. No. 3007 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- Mark A. Brown was convicted in 1990 of first‑degree murder, arson, and violating the Corrupt Organizations Act; he received life imprisonment for murder and a consecutive term for the corrupt‑organizations conviction.
- Brown’s corrupt‑organizations conviction was vacated following a 2008 federal habeas grant based on Commonwealth v. Besch; the trial court resentenced him in 2010 (life for murder), and Pennsylvania courts affirmed the resentencing.
- Brown filed a PCRA petition in 2013 raising multiple claims (including ineffective assistance of trial and PCRA counsel and Vienna Convention violations), arguing his judgment became final in July 2013 (allowing timely PCRA relief).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter concluding the petition was untimely; the PCRA court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as untimely and allowed counsel to withdraw.
- The Superior Court held the PCRA petition was untimely because the federal habeas resentencing did not “reset the clock” for finality of convictions that were not disturbed; Brown’s convictions became final after his original direct review concluded in 1995.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing after federal habeas restart the PCRA timeliness clock for unrelated claims | The 2010 resentencing (following federal habeas) and denial of further state review left time to seek U.S. Supreme Court review; judgment became final July 10, 2013 so PCRA filed within one year is timely | Federal habeas-based resentencing that affects sentence only does not reopen finality of convictions for PCRA purposes; timeliness is measured from direct review finality | Denied — resentencing did not reset the finality date; petition untimely, PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether trial counsel ineffectively failed to raise Vienna Convention consular notification | Brown: counsel failed to inform him of consular rights (Jamaican citizen), violating Vienna Convention and constituting IAC | Commonwealth: claim is untimely and raises issues unrelated to resentencing; PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to consider it | Not reached on merits — untimely jurisdictional bar applies |
| Whether trial counsel deprived Brown of opportunity to testify (IAC) | Brown: counsel prevented him from testifying and denying charges to jury | Commonwealth: claim challenges guilt‑phase counsel decisions from 1990 and is untimely post‑resentencing | Not reached on merits — untimely jurisdictional bar applies |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for filing a no‑merit letter re: juror impartiality and sentencing claims | Brown: PCRA counsel should have pursued juror disqualification and trial errors tied to vacated corrupt‑organizations conviction | Commonwealth: PCRA review is limited to resentencing issues; claims unrelated to resentencing are untimely | Denied — PCRA counsel’s procedural action not enough to overcome jurisdictional timeliness defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (federal habeas sentencing relief does not reopen finality of undisturbed convictions for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (limited federal habeas sentencing relief does not entitle petitioner to full PCRA review of long‑final convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Besch, 674 A.2d 655 (Pa. 1996) (Corrupt Organizations Act does not apply to wholly illegitimate enterprises)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)