Com. v. Carter, J.
33 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- On March 5, 2013, James E. Carter Jr. pleaded guilty (A-information) to two counts of possession with intent to deliver; sentence: 2½–5 years, with execution deferred to April 4, 2013. Carter failed to report and was arrested Aug. 4, 2013; court later amended effective date to Aug. 4, 2013.
- Carter filed a pro se PCRA petition (Nov. 8, 2013); public defender counsel filed an amended petition alleging the plea was coerced and counsel ineffective. The PCRA court held hearings, denied relief, and the Superior Court affirmed on May 22, 2015.
- Carter filed a second (pro se) PCRA petition on Sept. 21, 2015 raising (again) invalidity of the plea and timeliness arguments; the PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss, then dismissed without a hearing on Nov. 13, 2015.
- The PCRA court found the second petition untimely because a judgment of sentence became final on April 4, 2013 (thirty days after sentencing), so the one-year PCRA filing deadline was April 4, 2014; the Sept. 2015 petition was facially late.
- The court also concluded Carter failed to plead or prove any statutory exception (governmental interference, after-discovered facts, or newly recognized constitutional right), and most claims were previously litigated or waived.
- Superior Court affirmed dismissal (appeal consolidated/quashed procedural defect as to one docket) and adopted the PCRA court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | PCRA court: one-year limit from when judgment is final | Carter: judgment became final later (Aug. 15, 2013) or tolling by prior proceedings | Held: Petition untimely — judgment final March 5, 2013 (direct appeal not filed), one-year deadline April 4, 2014; Sept. 2015 filing is late |
| Applicability of PCRA exceptions | N/A (court asks petitioner to establish exceptions) | Carter claims government altered charges/withheld info; asserts facts were not known earlier; contends appeals tolled filing period | Held: No credible allegation or proof of governmental interference or after-discovered facts; prior proceedings do not toll PCRA deadline; exceptions not met |
| Previously litigated / waived issues | N/A | Carter re-raises plea validity/defects in amended information and waiver of arraignment | Held: Claims were previously litigated and/or waived (guilty plea waives many challenges); PCRA relief barred on that basis |
| Need for evidentiary hearing / counsel appointment on second petition | Carter sought appointment and a hearing | PCRA court refused appointment and intended dismissal without hearing | Held: No entitlement to counsel or hearing on untimely, previously litigated petition; dismissal without hearing proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; review de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (burden to plead statutory exception to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (timely notice of appeal triggers appellate jurisdiction despite defects)
- Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268 (Pa. 2014) (guilty plea waives many non-jurisdictional claims)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2007) (defendant who pleads guilty waives right to challenge defects in the information)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 861 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (ineffectiveness of prior counsel is not "governmental interference" for PCRA timeliness)