Com. v. Cochran, A.
926 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Anton Cochran was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime and sentenced to life imprisonment on March 29, 2007; he did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- In August 2012 Cochran filed a first collateral petition citing Miller v. Alabama; while pending he also filed a habeas petition claiming no written sentencing order authorized his confinement.
- PCRA counsel was appointed in November 2014; counsel filed a Finley no-merit letter and the PCRA court dismissed the first petition in April 2015.
- Cochran filed a pro se habeas petition on November 11, 2015; the PCRA court treated it as a PCRA petition, issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and dismissed it as untimely on March 4, 2016.
- Cochran argued the court should not treat his habeas petition as a PCRA petition, that no written judgment supported his confinement, and that his life sentence was unlawful because he was not charged with a prior homicide.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA subsumes habeas claims challenging sentence legality and that Cochran’s petition was untimely with no pleaded or proven timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition should not be treated as a PCRA petition | Cochran argued his habeas ad subjiciendum should be considered outside PCRA | Commonwealth: PCRA subsumes habeas when PCRA provides remedy for claim | Court: PCRA governs; habeas properly treated as PCRA petition |
| Whether the petition met PCRA timeliness requirements | Cochran argued merits (illegal sentence/no written order) justify relief | Commonwealth: petition filed >1 year after judgment final; timeliness jurisdictional | Court: Petition filed Nov 11, 2015, well after April 30, 2007 finality date; untimely; no exception proven |
| Whether lack of written sentencing order renders confinement unlawful | Cochran claimed no written judgment authorized confinement | Commonwealth: claim challenges sentence legality but must satisfy PCRA timing | Court: Merits not reached because untimely; legality review requires timely petition or exception |
| Validity of life sentence absent prior homicide charge | Cochran argued life sentence unlawful without prior homicide charge | Commonwealth: sentence legality cognizable under PCRA but subject to time limits | Court: Claim not addressed on merits due to untimeliness; petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (framework for appointed counsel withdrawing via no-merit letter)
- Peterkin v. Commonwealth, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA subsumes habeas when PCRA provides remedy)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Owens v. Commonwealth, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (finality date calculation for direct appeal period)
- Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2008) (burden to prove timeliness exception)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (illegality of sentence is cognizable but subject to PCRA time limits)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional as applied)