Com. v. Brozik, G.
Com. v. Brozik, G. No. 1107 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Gary Lynn Brozik pleaded guilty in April 2011 to possession of a firearm prohibited and was sentenced in May 2011 to 4 to 10 years; he did not file a direct appeal and his judgment of sentence became final June 15, 2011.
- Brozik filed a pro se PCRA petition in May 2012 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel; appointed counsel filed an amended PCRA, the court denied relief in February 2014, and this Court affirmed in December 2014; the PA Supreme Court denied allocatur in July 2015.
- In June 2016 Brozik filed a pro se motion styled as a coram nobis petition claiming a Miranda violation rendered his sentence illegal; the PCRA court treated it as a PCRA petition and issued a Rule 907 notice.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 filing as untimely under the PCRA; Brozik appealed the dismissal and filed a 1925(b) statement; the Superior Court affirmed on May 25, 2017.
- The Superior Court held the petition was a successive, untimely PCRA petition (filed over five years after finality) and Brozik failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the one-year timeliness requirement, so the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant preserved a Miranda claim in his original filings | Brozik argued the arresting officer admitted a Miranda violation and that he raised it previously | Commonwealth argued the filing was a PCRA petition and was untimely; the claim was not properly preserved to avoid PCRA timeliness rules | Court held the claim was subject to the PCRA, was untimely, and Appellant did not plead an exception |
| Whether Appellant’s open-court testimony preserved the Miranda issue | Brozik contended his in-court testimony preserved the Miranda claim | Commonwealth maintained preservation did not circumvent PCRA timeliness; substantive claim still must satisfy PCRA | Court rejected preservation argument as irrelevant to timeliness and jurisdiction |
| Whether Brozik’s coram nobis motion could avoid PCRA timeliness rules | Brozik labeled the filing coram nobis to challenge validity of judgment based on Miranda error | Commonwealth argued coram nobis claims falling within PCRA are exclusive to PCRA and cannot escape timeliness requirements | Court held coram nobis is subsumed by the PCRA when cognizable there and timeliness rules apply |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress or raising Miranda immediately | Brozik alleged public defender’s competence fell below standards for failing to act on the officer’s admission | Commonwealth asserted ineffective-assistance claim must be raised within PCRA timeliness framework and no timeliness exception was pleaded | Court noted claim was cognizable under PCRA but untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 864 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (claims cognizable under PCRA are exclusive to PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Voss, 838 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2003) (legality of sentence cognizable under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (requirements for filing exceptions to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (cannot avoid PCRA timeliness by mislabeling petition)