Com. v. Daniels, G.
Com. v. Daniels, G. No. 3373 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Gary Marc Daniels was convicted after a bench trial of drug possession, intent to deliver, and paraphernalia; sentenced May 28, 2008 to 5–10 years plus one year probation.
- Direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court on October 9, 2009; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on November 1, 2010; no U.S. Supreme Court certiorari was filed.
- Daniels filed his first PCRA petition June 15, 2015, more than four years after his judgment of sentence became final (final on Jan 31, 2011).
- PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, held a jurisdictional hearing, and dismissed the petition as untimely on September 26, 2016; Daniels appealed.
- Daniels argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely notify him of the Supreme Court denial and for not pursuing federal habeas, which he claimed caused the untimely PCRA filing.
- PCRA counsel conceded none of the statutory time‑bar exceptions applied; the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing the PCRA petition as untimely without a hearing | Daniels: trial counsel’s ineffectiveness (failure to notify and to seek further review) made the PCRA filing untimely through no fault of petitioner | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Petition filed well after the one‑year deadline; petitioner failed to plead or prove any statutory exception; ineffectiveness alone does not excuse the time bar | Court held PCRA petition untimely; lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness can overcome the PCRA time bar | Daniels: counsel’s failures prevented timely filing, so equitable relief warranted | Commonwealth: PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and only statutory exceptions apply; equitable tolling not available | Court held ineffectiveness does not bypass statutory time limits; no exception pleaded or shown |
| Whether any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar was met | Daniels: impliedly argued newly discovered facts/exception due to counsel’s conduct | Commonwealth: No showing facts were unknown or that any other statutory exception applies; petitioner did not file within 60 days of discovery | Court held no statutory exception satisfied; petition untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate deference to PCRA factfinding)
- Davis, 86 A.3d 883 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness implicates jurisdiction)
- Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time bar is jurisdictional; equitable tolling not available; only statutory exceptions apply)