Com. v. Crosby, A.
561 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Albert Bailey Crosby was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder (guilty plea 1962; retrial conviction affirmed 1971) and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Crosby was paroled in 1977 but returned to prison after multiple arrests and parole revocation; he has filed multiple prior habeas and PCRA petitions (1981, 1998, 2004, 2008).
- On June 14, 2012 Crosby filed a habeas corpus petition and on September 24, 2015 he filed his fifth PCRA petition challenging his continued detention and raising constitutional and trial-related claims.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on January 28, 2016 as untimely, finding Crosby’s judgment of sentence final in 1971 and that he did not satisfy any statutory timeliness exception.
- The court also rejected Crosby’s claim that the DOC lacked authority to detain him due to an alleged missing written sentencing order, finding the sentencing was recorded on the docket and that DOC retains detention authority even without a written order.
- Crosby appealed pro se to the Superior Court, which affirmed the PCRA dismissal on December 5, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Crosby argued his petition was timely due to government interference and recent case law (Alleyne/Hopkins). | Commonwealth argued the petition was untimely—judgment final in 1971—and no exception applies. | Petition untimely; dismissed (no statutory exception shown). |
| Application of newly-recognized-right exception | Crosby relied on Alleyne and Hopkins to invoke §9545(b)(1)(iii). | Commonwealth argued those decisions do not create a retroactive new right for collateral review and Crosby filed outside 60-day window. | Alleyne/Hopkins do not establish a retroactive right applicable here; Crosby did not file within 60 days. |
| Legality of detention based on lack of written sentencing order | Crosby claimed DOC lacked authority to detain without a written sentencing order per §9764 and regs. | Commonwealth showed docket and that sentencing judges pronounced life sentences; precedent permits DOC detention authority despite missing written order. | Claim meritless; sentencing reflected on docket and DOC retains authority. |
| Right to testify/witness exclusion & ineffective assistance claims | Crosby asserted trial unfairness (excluded psychiatrist and victim’s wife) and ineffective counsel (Sixth Amendment). | Commonwealth treated these as substantive claims but procedurally defaulted due to untimeliness; no timely exception pleaded. | Claims not reached on merits because PCRA petition was time-barred; dismissal affirmed. |
| Sixty-day filing requirement for exceptions | Crosby contended he satisfied timeliness under 60-day rule when new cases issued. | Commonwealth noted Crosby did not file within 60 days of Alleyne or Hopkins dates. | Crosby failed to plead and prove claims were raised within 60 days as required; exception unmet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (§9545(b)(2) sixty-day pleading requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne retroactivity analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Hopkins did not announce a new rule)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (DOC detention authority despite missing written sentencing order)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (application of Alleyne to statutory sentencing provision)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory minimums and fact-finding by jury)