Com. v. Corliss, J.
Com. v. Corliss, J. No. 2468 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- Justin Corliss was convicted in 1998 of statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and corruption of minors and sentenced to 4–10 years; he completed his sentence in 2008.
- Corliss filed multiple post-conviction petitions over the years, including a coram nobis petition in 2013 that the PCRA court treated as an untimely PCRA and which the Superior Court affirmed; the PA Supreme Court denied review.
- On June 3, 2016 Corliss filed a pro se "Nunc Pro Tunc Petition for Post-Conviction Relief" alleging his court‑appointed appellate counsel, David Skutnik, had a conflict of interest because Skutnik formerly worked as an assistant district attorney.
- The PCRA court denied the petition as untimely on June 21, 2016; Corliss filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal on July 20, 2016, but the PCRA court struck that notice and denied reconsideration on July 21; Corliss then filed a new notice of appeal on August 5, 2016.
- The Superior Court concluded the July 20 notice should have remained effective and treated the August 5 notice as untimely but excused the defect due to a breakdown in the judicial process; the panel nonetheless affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal on timeliness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Corliss timely filed notice of appeal (filed July 20 within 30 days) | PCRA court struck July 20 notice; new notice (Aug 5) was filed after reconsideration denial | Superior Court excused untimely Aug 5 filing because trial court error caused breakdown in process; appeal considered timely |
| Whether PCRA petition was timely | Corliss sought nunc pro tunc relief claiming appellate conflict of interest to reinstate direct-appeal rights | Commonwealth/PCRA court: petition filed >1 year after final judgment; no statutory exception pleaded | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Conflict-of-interest claim against appellate counsel | Corliss: Skutnik’s prior DA employment created a conflict warranting relief and an evidentiary hearing | PCRA court: even if Skutnik had been a DA, Corliss did not allege Skutnik actually prosecuted him or that prior PCRAs were fatally defective; issue could have been raised earlier | No relief; conflict theory distinguishable from Williams and waived by failure to raise in timely PCRA petitions |
| Motion to quash appeal (Commonwealth) | Commonwealth argued Corliss ineligible for PCRA relief because he completed sentence and petition untimely | Corliss argued merits of conflict and breakdown in process avoiding quash | Motion to quash denied as moot; Superior Court affirmed dismissal on timeliness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 814 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 2002) (second PCRA allowed where first was fatally defective due to counsel conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appeal excused where trial court error caused breakdown in judicial process)
- Pa. R.A.P. 1701 (Official Note cited) (procedural guidance on reconsideration and notice of appeal timing)
- Moore v. Moore, 634 A.2d 163 (Pa. 1993) (filing reconsideration does not toll appeal period)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 149 A.3d 362 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness of PCRA petitions and jurisdictional nature)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (requirements for nunc pro tunc/late PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (ineligibility for PCRA relief after sentence completion)