Com. v. Byrd, H.
849 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- In 1976 Byrd was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses (robbery, PIC, aggravated and simple assaults) and sentenced to 33.5–67 years; he also serves an unrelated life sentence.
- Byrd’s direct appeal resulted in a reversal on speedy-trial grounds, the Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing, and the Superior Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s post-remand findings in 1987; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur.
- Byrd filed multiple collateral petitions over the years under habeas and the PCRA; earlier PCRA challenges were dismissed and one resulted in partial sentence vacatur.
- In January/February 2014 Byrd filed a pro se habeas petition asserting the charges had been dismissed before trial and thus his imprisonment was unlawful; the trial court treated the filing as a PCRA petition and found it untimely.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Byrd’s judgment of sentence became final in January 1988 and his 2014 petition was filed more than 26 years later; Byrd did not plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception.
- Byrd appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA subsumes habeas claims cognizable under the PCRA and that the petition was untimely absent a proven exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by treating Byrd’s habeas petition as a PCRA petition | Byrd: his claims are habeas claims, not PCRA, so should not be dismissed as untimely under the PCRA | Commonwealth: PCRA is the sole vehicle for collateral relief and subsumes habeas when PCRA provides a remedy | Court: PCRA properly applied because Byrd challenged legality of sentence, which is cognizable under the PCRA |
| Whether the petition was timely or fit a statutory timeliness exception | Byrd: alleged dismissal of charges prior to trial (fraud on court) created an entitlement to review | Commonwealth: Byrd’s judgment became final in 1988; 2014 filing is untimely and Byrd did not plead/prove any statutory exception | Court: Petition untimely; no exception pleaded/proved; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA subsumes habeas where PCRA provides remedy)
- Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2004) (legality of sentence is cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness implicates jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. Super. 1999) (merits review requires meeting PCRA time limits or exception)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for counsel filing no-merit letter in PCRA proceedings)