Com. v. Dade, L.
2817 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- In June 2011 Dade was charged with more than 26 counts arising from a home invasion and flight from police; he ultimately pled guilty to robbery, burglary/fleeing, and aggravated assault at different stages.
- On October 18, 2011 Dade entered an open guilty plea; he later moved to withdraw that plea and the court granted withdrawal on December 14, 2011.
- Dade proceeded to a jury trial on May 14, 2012, but after voir dire and limited testimony he again entered a guilty plea; the court sentenced him the same day to an aggregate 20 to 40 years.
- Dade did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on June 13, 2012. He filed a pro se PCRA petition on March 7, 2016, which was facially untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit / withdrawal submission; the PCRA court gave Rule 907 notice, received a pro se response, and dismissed the petition on August 4, 2016 for lack of jurisdiction because no timeliness exception was pleaded or proved.
- Dade appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that Dade failed to plead or prove a § 9545(b)(1) exception (his argument that he only recently learned his prior plea was withdrawn was rejected as inconsistent with the record).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dade) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred in dismissing petition as untimely | Dade argued his petition qualifies under the after‑discovered‑facts exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) because he only learned counsel withdrew his earlier guilty plea in Feb. 2016 | The record shows Dade knew the plea was withdrawn by May 14, 2012; he did not file within one year and failed to plead/prove a § 9545(b)(1) exception | Dismissal affirmed: petition untimely and no exception proved, so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether PCRA court erred by accepting PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley submission | Dade claimed counsel’s no‑merit letter was inadequate per Turner/Finley | PCRA court complied with Turner/Finley procedures; because petition was untimely the court had no jurisdiction to reach substantive claims | Held: court correctly accepted counsel’s withdrawal and dismissed on timeliness grounds; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal and no‑merit submissions)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner procedures applied to PCRA counsel no‑merit filings)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA one‑year filing rule is mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (requirement to plead and prove specific facts to invoke § 9545(b)(1) exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 841 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements of the after‑discovered‑evidence exception)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to hear untimely petition)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)