Com. v. Camp, A.
Com. v. Camp, A. No. 1137 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 2, 2017Background
- Allan C. Camp, Jr. was convicted by jury in 1994 of multiple burglary-related offenses arising from crimes between 1991–1993 and received an aggregate sentence of 73–146 years; convictions were partially reversed and he was resentenced in 1995 to the same aggregate term.
- Direct appeals concluded in 2001 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; Camp’s judgment of sentence became final on May 15, 2001.
- Camp filed timely first PCRA petition (denied 2001) and a second untimely PCRA petition (dismissed in 2014; this Court affirmed dismissal in 2015).
- On June 10, 2015, Camp filed a third, pro se PCRA petition (amended August 28, 2015); the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, Camp did not respond, and the court dismissed the petition as untimely on June 21, 2016.
- Camp argued on appeal that the petition should be considered because of (a) multiple trial errors causing a miscarriage of justice and (b) governmental interference that prevented obtaining discovery and supporting claims of flawed forensics and actual innocence.
- The Superior Court held Camp’s petition was facially untimely (filed well beyond the one-year limitation) and that Camp waived invocation of the statutory timeliness exceptions by failing to plead them in the PCRA petition or Rule 1925(b) statement; even if considered, his vague allegations of governmental interference were insufficient to satisfy the exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely third PCRA petition could be entertained under a timeliness exception | Camp: governmental interference prevented him from obtaining discovery and proving flawed forensics/actual innocence | Commonwealth: petition is untimely and Camp did not plead any statutory exception below | Petition is untimely; issue waived because exceptions were not pled below; even on merits allegations were bald and insufficient |
| Whether multiple trial errors require relief as a miscarriage of justice despite untimeliness | Camp: multiple serious errors produced an unfair trial and miscarriage of justice | Commonwealth: substantive claims cannot overcome jurisdictional time bar without invoking exceptions | Court rejected claim as it did not cure untimeliness and was not properly raised; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 21 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2011) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (untimely PCRA petition deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Abu-Jamal v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove statutory timeliness exceptions)
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement waived)
- Pollard v. Commonwealth, 911 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2006) (bald assertions of governmental interference insufficient to invoke exception)