Com. v. Coles, C.
Com. v. Coles, C. No. 1329 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- In 1995 a jury convicted Celeste Coles of two counts each of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit homicide, and robbery, plus theft and conspiracy to commit robbery, for her role in two shootings and robberies; she received two consecutive life terms on July 19, 1995.
- The Superior Court affirmed Coles’s convictions but remanded in 1996 for an evidentiary hearing about whether a co-participant personally invoked his Fifth Amendment right; after the hearing the court again affirmed in 1999.
- Coles’s judgment of sentence became final on June 9, 1999 (thirty days after the May 10, 1999 affirmance).
- Coles filed a PCRA petition on June 9, 2009; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely. The Superior Court previously ordered appointment of counsel for her 2009 petition; counsel filed a no-merit letter and motion to withdraw, and the PCRA petition was denied.
- On appeal from the July 29, 2016 order dismissing her PCRA petition as untimely, Coles argued ineffective assistance of counsel and sought relief; she did not invoke any statutory timeliness exception.
- The Superior Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was untimely and Coles failed to allege or prove any of the three statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coles’s PCRA petition is timely | Coles argued ineffective assistance of counsel warrant review and relief | Commonwealth argued the petition was filed well after the one-year PCRA period and no exception applies | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims can excuse tardiness | Coles contended counsel failures justify review despite delay | Commonwealth relied on precedent that counsel ineffectiveness does not satisfy PCRA timeliness exceptions | Ineffective-assistance claims do not overcome the PCRA time bar |
| Whether any statutory exception to the one-year bar was pleaded | Coles did not invoke any §9545(b)(1) exception | Commonwealth argued absence of any invoked or proved exception | No exception alleged or proven; dismissal proper |
| Whether the Superior Court should reach the merits despite procedural defects in appellant’s brief | Coles’s brief lacked authorities and issues statement | Commonwealth implicitly urged dismissal on procedural and timeliness grounds | Court declined merits review and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for appellate review of PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA review standard cited)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (judgment finality and review timing principles)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims do not satisfy PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (counsel errors not "government officials" for timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (after-discovered evidence exception not met by discovery of prior counsel’s failures)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (ineffectiveness allegations insufficient to overcome time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 911 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2006) (affirming that ineffectiveness claims do not excuse untimeliness)