Com. v. Davenport, E.
Com. v. Davenport, E. No. 1941 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 10, 2017Background
- In July 1992, Elmer L. Davenport was convicted of second-degree murder, rape, and theft; sentenced to an aggregate life term.
- Direct appeals were exhausted and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 1995; judgments became final thereafter.
- Davenport filed multiple collateral challenges: a 1996 PCRA petition (dismissed and affirmed) and an October 14, 2015 petition treated as a PCRA petition/habeas corpus filing.
- In the 2015 filing Davenport argued his murder sentence statute was unconstitutionally vague and thus his sentence was illegal; the court treated the filing under the PCRA because it was a post-judgment collateral challenge.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Davenport responded, and the court dismissed the petition as untimely. Davenport appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was patently untimely and no statutory timeliness exception was pled or proven, depriving the court of jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davenport's post-judgment petition could be considered despite being filed after final judgment | Davenport contended his sentence statute was void for vagueness, rendering his sentence illegal and justifying relief | Commonwealth argued the petition was a PCRA filing outside the one-year statutory time bar and no exception was pleaded | Petition was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); because no timeliness exception was invoked within 60 days, court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition |
| Whether the petition should be treated as a PCRA petition or habeas corpus/coram nobis | Davenport framed it as habeas corpus claiming illegal sentence | Commonwealth asserted any post-final-judgment collateral filing is subject to the PCRA (the exclusive remedy) | Court treated the filing as a PCRA petition because PCRA subsumes other collateral remedies and provides the sole vehicle for such claims |
| Whether claims attacking legality of sentence can bypass timeliness requirements | Davenport argued illegality of sentence allows consideration despite delay | Commonwealth maintained timeliness is jurisdictional and illegality claims still require jurisdictional compliance | Court reiterated that legality claims require jurisdiction; absent a timely PCRA exception, court cannot consider merits |
| Whether any cited precedent permitted relief here | Davenport relied on general principles about illegal sentences | Commonwealth relied on PCRA timeliness jurisprudence | Court applied established PCRA precedent and denied relief because procedural requirements were not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; exceptions and 60-day filing rule)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (post-judgment collateral filings are treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (court jurisdiction required to consider legality-of-sentence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Davenport, 663 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 1995) (prior appeal affirming conviction)