Com. v. Caccese, V.
1386 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Vincent Caccese entered a negotiated guilty plea on November 19, 2013 to DUI and related driving-under-suspension offenses; sentenced that day and did not file a direct appeal, so judgment became final December 19, 2013.
- On October 14, 2016, Caccese filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus asking to be returned to county custody; the court treated it as a PCRA petition and appointed counsel.
- Counsel filed a PCRA petition/amended habeas on February 10, 2017; the court held a hearing March 20, 2017 and dismissed the petition as untimely on April 11, 2017.
- Caccese argued he only learned that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole retained jurisdiction over his case in August 2016, invoking the PCRA’s ‘‘new facts’’ exception to the one‑year time bar.
- The Commonwealth introduced a January 10, 2017 letter from Caccese stating he became aware of state parole supervision in August 2015; the court found this credible and concluded Caccese knew of the facts more than 60 days before filing.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petition was timely under the "new facts" exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Caccese: He did not know the State Parole Board retained jurisdiction until Aug 18, 2016, so his Oct 14, 2016 filing was within 60 days of discovery | Commonwealth: Record (Caccese’s own January 2017 letter) shows he knew of state parole supervision by Aug 2015, so the exception does not apply and petition is untimely | Court: Petition untimely; appellant knew facts in Aug 2015 so lacked 60‑day filing window; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; court may not reach merits of untimely petition)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (describes requirements for § 9545(b)(1)(ii) "new facts" exception: unknown facts plus due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (habeas claims cognizable under the PCRA must comply with PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Glacken, 32 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. 2011) (pro se filings by a defendant represented by counsel are legal nullities)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (right to counsel for a first PCRA petition)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw when appellate brief presents no meritorious issues)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (appellate procedure standards related to Anders practice)
- Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Anders procedure applied in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standard for counsel withdrawal on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedural standard for counsel withdrawing when appellate claims lack merit)