Com. v. Carmon, S.
549 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- In October 2006 a jury convicted Shalamar R. Carmon of first‑degree murder; he was sentenced the same day to life imprisonment without parole.
- Carmon’s direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur; his judgment of sentence became final on September 24, 2008.
- Carmon filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2009; it was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. A second PCRA petition filed in 2012 was dismissed as untimely.
- On December 12, 2016 Carmon filed a third PCRA petition asserting his sentence was illegal and that he lacked notice that his detention was lawful; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely on January 23, 2017.
- The PCRA court concluded Carmon failed to prove any statutory timeliness exception and observed (without deciding merits) that his life sentence for first‑degree murder was not illegal.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carmon) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carmon’s third PCRA petition was timely under the PCRA exceptions | Carmon argued his sentence is illegal and he only recently discovered he was being illegally detained, so an exception to the one‑year rule applies | Commonwealth argued the petition was filed well beyond the one‑year deadline and no qualifying exception was shown | Petition untimely; Carmon did not prove any § 9545(b)(1) exception; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Carmon’s life sentence for 1st‑degree murder is illegal | Carmon contended no statute lawfully authorized his deprivation of liberty and thus the sentence is illegal | Commonwealth argued 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a)(1) mandates life for 1st‑degree murder and § 9711 governs sentencing | Court (not reaching merits) observed sentence is not illegal under applicable statutes |
| Whether equitable lack of knowledge excuses timeliness | Carmon claimed he did not know he was illegally detained until 2016, so § 9545(b)(1)(ii) applies | Commonwealth maintained lack of awareness does not satisfy the ‘‘unknown facts’’ exception and Carmon lacked due diligence | Held that Carmon’s claim of ignorance was unavailing; exception not established |
| Whether procedural defects at sentencing prevented judgment from becoming final | Carmon argued his judgment of sentence never legally became final because the statute authorizing the sentence was lacking | Commonwealth argued direct review concluded and judgment became final in 2008 | Held judgment became final in 2008; PCRA deadline applied and was missed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard for review of PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA court findings reviewed for record support)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is a question of law; jurisdictional filing mandates)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (petitioner must plead and prove facts to show claim raised within 60‑day exception)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness requirements are jurisdictional; second/subsequent PCRA petitions restricted)
- Commonwealth v. Carmon, 947 A.2d 822 (Pa. Super. 2008) (affirming Carmon’s direct appeal)