Com. v. Currin, J.
198 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- In December 2008 Currin robbed a bank, fled in his truck, struck police vehicles, and was shot; he pleaded guilty to multiple charges on June 3, 2009.
- Sentenced July 31, 2009 to 20–40 years imprisonment; direct appeal affirmed by this Court on August 14, 2012; judgment became final September 13, 2012.
- Currin filed a first PCRA petition in July 2013 (dismissed and appeal affirmed), a second PCRA petition in April 2015 (withdrawn), and a third PCRA petition on November 30, 2016 (instant petition).
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the third petition on January 11, 2017 as untimely; Currin did not respond to the Rule 907 notice.
- Currin argued the petition invoked the PCRA’s newly-discovered-evidence timeliness exception based on discovery received in October 2016; record shows defense counsel had that discovery in 2009 and Currin acknowledged facts at plea.
- The PCRA court concluded Currin failed to plead a timeliness exception; this appeal followed and the Superior Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Currin) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely (or fits a timeliness exception) | October 2016 discovery showed victim said she feared no harm, qualifying as newly discovered evidence under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | The purported “new” facts were known to defense counsel in 2009 and Currin admitted the contrary facts at plea; no due diligence shown | Petition untimely; timeliness exception not met; court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims |
| Offense Gravity Score for robbery (discretionary sentencing challenge) | Currin contends the court used incorrect OGS when sentencing on robbery | Claim is subject to PCRA timeliness rules and Currin did not plead an exception | Untimely; Superior Court did not reach merits |
| Sufficiency of charge for aggravated assault (challenging that subsection and penalty) | Currin argues he was mischarged under §2702(a)(2) (attempt to cause SBI) rather than a lesser subsection | Claim could have been raised on direct appeal; untimely and no exception pleaded | Untimely; Superior Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Fears v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Hackett v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (no jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (newly-discovered-evidence timeliness exception requires unknown facts and due diligence)
- Sunealitis v. Commonwealth, 153 A.3d 414 (Pa. Super. 2016) (incorrect offense gravity score raises a substantial question as to discretionary aspects of sentence)