Com. v. Byrd, H., Com. v. Byrd, H. No. 2133 EDA 2016

Haddrick Byrd was sentenced to life imprisonment for second-degree murder on January 12, 1976; his direct appeal was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Byrd filed multiple collateral challenges (1980, 1994); prior PCRA relief denials were affirmed on appeal.
In October 2013 Byrd filed a pro se habeas corpus petition claiming he never received formal charging documents (complaint/indictment) and thus the trial court lacked authority to sentence him.
The petition was transferred to the criminal division and the PCRA court treated it as a PCRA petition, issued a Rule 907 notice, and dismissed it as untimely on June 13, 2016.
Byrd appealed, arguing (1) the claim that a judgment is void is not cognizable under the PCRA and (2) the District Attorney perpetrated a fraud by trying him without formal charges; he also argued his judgment never became final because it was void.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the claim was cognizable under the PCRA but the petition was jurisdictionally time‑barred because Byrd’s judgment became final decades earlier and no statutory timeliness exception was pled.

Issue	Byrd's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether a habeas petition alleging lack of formal charging documents is outside the PCRA and cannot be treated as a PCRA petition	Byrd: His claim attacks the court's power/authority (not jurisdiction) and thus is outside PCRA scope	Commonwealth: The PCRA subsumes habeas and claims that a conviction resulted from a tribunal without jurisdiction are cognizable under the PCRA	Held: The claim challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction/notice and is cognizable under the PCRA (§9543) and may be time‑barred under PCRA rules
Whether the petition is timely or fits a PCRA exception so the court can reach the merits	Byrd: Judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, therefore it never became final and the one‑year PCRA time bar does not apply	Commonwealth: Byrd’s conviction became final decades ago; he did not plead any of the statutory exceptions to overcome the one‑year jurisdictional time bar	Held: Petition is untimely; the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits because Byrd did not plead a statutory exception (petition filed >1 year after finality)

Commonwealth v. Byrd, 417 A.2d 173 (Pa. 1980) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
Commonwealth v. Little, 314 A.2d 270 (Pa. 1974) (formal notice via indictment is essential to invoke court’s jurisdiction)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA subsumes habeas corpus; titling cannot evade PCRA time bar)
Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Stout, 978 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2009) (cannot use habeas to evade PCRA timeliness)
Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (habeas not available to bypass PCRA time bar)
Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 834 A.2d 488 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishing jurisdiction from a tribunal’s power to act)