Com. v. Cook, J.
46 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 29, 2017Background
- Jonathan Cook was convicted by a jury in 2002 of third-degree murder and multiple related offenses and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment; his direct appeal concluded in 2003 and became final on June 26, 2003.
- Cook filed multiple pro se PCRA petitions; the third petition was filed October 14, 2015 (alleging he had regained competence about two weeks earlier).
- Cook's third PCRA asserted (among other claims) that he was incompetent at trial and sentencing, that counsel was ineffective for proceeding despite incompetence, and that counsel failed to object to undisclosed/Brady evidence.
- The PCRA court evaluated timeliness: PCRA claims must be filed within one year of finality unless one of three statutory exceptions applies; Cook invoked the after-discovered-facts/incompetence exception derived from Commonwealth v. Cruz.
- The trial record (colloquies, sentencing exchange, presentence report) supported a presumption of competence; Cook failed to prove by a preponderance that he was continuously incompetent during the period when the PCRA filing deadline lapsed or that he regained competence within 60 days before filing.
- The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely under §9545(b); the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that Cook failed to meet the Cruz exception and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cook) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook’s untimely PCRA petition is saved by the incompetence/after-discovered-facts exception (Cruz) | Cook asserted he was mentally incompetent during the relevant period, only regaining competence ~Oct 1, 2015, and thus his third PCRA (filed Oct 14, 2015) was timely under Cruz | The PCRA court relied on the trial record and intermediate filings showing competence; Cook did not prove continuous incompetence during the lapse or the required 60-day timing to invoke the exception | Denied — Cook failed to meet the burden to invoke the Cruz exception; petition untimely and jurisdictionally barred |
| Whether Cook was incompetent at trial/sentencing such that due process was violated | Cook contended he was incompetent at trial/sentencing and thus the conviction/sentence violated due process | Trial record (colloquies, Cook’s coherent responses, sentencing exchange, PSR) and absence of contemporaneous competency findings rebut presumption of competence | Denied — petitioner failed to prove incompetence by a preponderance; no evidentiary hearing warranted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing trial/sentencing while Cook was incompetent | Cook argued trial counsel knew or should have known of incompetence and therefore was ineffective for proceeding | PCRA court found no sufficient evidence that counsel knew or that petitioner was incompetent at the time; without proving incompetence, the ineffective-assistance claim could not overcome timeliness bar | Denied — ineffective assistance claim tied to incompetence fails because petitioner did not prove incompetence and petition is untimely |
| Whether counsel failed to object to introduction of undisclosed evidence/Brady violations | Cook alleged trial counsel failed to object to evidence not disclosed in discovery (a Brady-type claim) | Petition was vague as to facts; PCRA court held the pleading lacked factual particularity and, separately, was untimely absent a timeliness exception | Denied — claim insufficiently pled and untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 852 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2004) (establishes limited PCRA timeliness exception when petitioner was continuously incompetent and thus unable to discover collateral claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (burden on petitioner to prove incompetence by a preponderance to invoke Cruz exception)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (standard of appellate review in PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; courts lack power to reach merits of untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (reiterates jurisdictional nature of the PCRA timeliness rule)
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (trial court competency findings receive deference given ability to observe defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mental illness ordinarily does not excuse PCRA timeliness; only limited circumstances qualify)