Com. v. Danysh, K.
Com. v. Danysh, K. No. 1068 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Kurt Michael Danysh pleaded guilty in 1997 to third-degree murder and robbery; sentenced to 22½ to 60 years on November 20, 1997.
- Direct appeal affirmed by this Court on April 7, 1999; judgment became final May 7, 1999 (no further appeal to PA Supreme Court).
- Danysh filed a pro se "Motion for Modification of Sentence (nunc pro tunc) on Ground of After-Discovered Evidence" on January 15, 2010, and an addendum on March 30, 2015.
- The PCRA court treated the filings as an untimely, successive PCRA petition, concluded it lacked jurisdiction, and issued an order on May 31, 2016 disposing of the petition.
- Danysh argued the PCRA time-bar should be excused under the "after-discovered evidence" exception because Eli Lilly allegedly concealed Prozac's violent side effects; he sought sentence modification on that basis.
- The PCRA court and this Court held the petition untimely, the claim non-cognizable under the PCRA's listed bases, and that Danysh failed to satisfy the 60-day filing requirement for the timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction over Danysh's motion treated as a PCRA petition | Danysh: motion raises after-discovered evidence (Prozac violent side effects) triggering PCRA exception to time bar | Commonwealth/PCRA court: petition is untimely, and claim is not a cognizable PCRA basis for relief; jurisdiction lacking | PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; petition untimely and claim not cognizable under §9543(a)(2) |
| Whether alleged after-discovered evidence (Prozac side effects) qualifies as a timeliness exception | Danysh: newly discovered evidence of medication-induced violence justifies exception | Commonwealth: Danysh knew of the Prozac issues by 2005 but filed in 2010; failed to file within 60 days of discovery | Court: even if cognizable, Danysh failed to plead/prove exception and missed the 60-day filing window; claim waived |
| Whether claim challenges legality of sentence such that timeliness rules could be relaxed | Danysh: argues sentence should be modified based on mitigating after-discovered evidence | Commonwealth: claim attacks discretionary aspects of sentencing, not legality | Court: claim attacks discretionary sentencing — not a cognizable PCRA claim for relief; timeliness rules still apply |
| Proper procedural vehicle for post-conviction relief | Danysh: styled relief as motion to modify sentence (nunc pro tunc) | Commonwealth: post-judgment motions filed after finality are PCRA petitions | Court: Motion was properly treated as an untimely serial PCRA petition; PCRA is the exclusive remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the sole means for post-conviction relief)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary sentencing challenges are not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims remain subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive the court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (statutory exceptions to PCRA time-bar defined)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove applicability of timeliness exceptions)