Com. v. Campbell, D.
102 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Darnell M. Campbell pleaded guilty on January 13, 2014 to possession with intent to deliver cocaine and was sentenced on February 19, 2014 to 54 to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- Campbell filed a direct appeal but withdrew it on March 31, 2014; his judgment of sentence became final that day.
- Campbell filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 22, 2015 asserting his sentence was illegal under the Drug Free School Zone Act in light of Alleyne v. United States.
- Counsel was appointed, filed Turner/Finley no‑merit correspondence, and the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and ultimately dismissed the petition on December 22, 2015.
- The Superior Court considered sua sponte whether the PCRA petition was timely and concluded the petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final and did not invoke any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Campbell's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbell's PCRA petition was timely | Petition filed April 22, 2015 (and later amended Aug. 17, 2015) should be considered timely or saved by Alleyne-based claim | Petition was untimely because judgment became final Mar. 31, 2014 and no timeliness exception applies | Untimely: petition was filed after the one-year PCRA period and no exception was pled or proven; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Alleyne created a retroactive exception to the PCRA time bar | Alleyne recognized a constitutional rule (mandatory facts that increase mandatory minimums) that should permit relief | Alleyne does not satisfy PCRA's retroactivity exception as pleaded here | Not established: Campbell did not plead or prove the §9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by reaching merits despite timeliness defect | Campbell contested dismissal on substantive grounds (merits) | Commonwealth did not raise timeliness but court may raise it sua sponte | Superior Court may affirm on any basis in record; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness |
| Whether procedural irregularities (appointments, reassignment) affected relief | Procedural irregularities might excuse delays or affect review | No timeliness exception shown; procedural irregularities do not cure jurisdictional defect | Irrelevant: jurisdictional timeliness defect requires dismissal regardless of procedural history |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899 (Pa. Super. 2012) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for timeliness is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Conway, 706 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Super. 1997) (judgment of sentence becomes final when direct appeal is discontinued at defendant's request)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel's no‑merit letter and withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel seeking permission to withdraw on PCRA appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court may affirm on any basis in the record)