Com. v. Carson, G.
Com. v. Carson, G. No. 77 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Appellant George William Carson pleaded open guilty to third-degree murder on March 26, 2009, and was sentenced to 19–38 years on May 28, 2009.
- The judgment of sentence became final on April 7, 2011, after the time expired to seek allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Carson filed multiple PCRA petitions; his third PCRA petition was filed pro se on June 27, 2016, and dismissed by the PCRA court on December 15, 2016.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice; Carson responded, then timely appealed the dismissal and was ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement (which was not timely filed).
- Carson argued his petition fell within the PCRA time-bar exception for a newly recognized constitutional right, relying on Foster v. Chatman, and also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely for lack of jurisdiction; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Carson argued his petition should be considered despite filing in 2016 (after the one-year limitation). | Commonwealth argued petition was filed well after the one-year deadline and is time-barred. | Petition is untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
| Applicability of Foster v. Chatman (new constitutional right) | Carson invoked Foster, claiming a newly recognized constitutional rule that should excuse timeliness. | Commonwealth argued Foster does not create a new retroactive right here; Carson pled guilty (no jury) and Foster didn’t announce a retroactive right. | Foster did not satisfy the Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception; claim fails. |
| Newly discovered facts exception | Carson suggested facts or rulings he relied upon were newly discovered. | Commonwealth argued Carson failed to plead facts that were unknown and not discoverable earlier with due diligence. | Carson failed to plead or prove new facts under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii); exception not met. |
| Rule 1925(b) compliance / waiver | Carson appealed pro se without timely filing a Rule 1925(b) statement. | Commonwealth noted failure to file the statement waives issues; trial court did not address issues. | Issues were waived for failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Superior Court may nonetheless address merits when trial court had opportunity, but here it did not, so waiver stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (U.S. 2016) (racially motivated peremptory strikes violate the Constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to file timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court opinion can allow review despite untimely 1925(b) if court had adequate opportunity)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirements for invoking newly recognized constitutional right exception to PCRA timeliness)