Com. v. Davis, F.
652 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- In 2005 Davis was convicted (including first-degree murder) and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed in 2007 and he did not seek timely review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Davis filed various collateral filings later, including a 2012 petition in Commonwealth Court seeking return of inmate-account funds; that action concluded in 2015 after denials and unsuccessful requests for nunc pro tunc relief.
- Davis filed a PCRA petition on August 26, 2016 (prisoner-mailbox rule). The PCRA court treated it as untimely and issued notice of intent to dismiss; counsel filed an amended petition and a January 13, 2017 hearing followed.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition on January 17, 2017 for lack of jurisdiction because it was facially untimely and no timeliness exception was adequately pleaded or proven.
- Davis argued his judgment of sentence only became final after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied relief in August 2015, and alternatively invoked the governmental-interference (Brady) exception.
- The PCRA and this Court rejected both arguments: the judgment became final in November 2007 (expiration of time to seek direct review) and Davis failed to plead/establish the 60‑day/ diligence requirements for the Brady exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s PCRA petition was timely | Davis: judgment not final until PA Supreme Court’s Aug 27, 2015 denial, so petition (Aug 2016) is timely | Commonwealth: judgment became final when time to seek direct review expired in 2007 | Court held petition untimely; finality occurred when direct-review period expired in 2007 |
| Whether ongoing collateral filings tolled finality | Davis: ongoing filings and requests prevented finality | Commonwealth: collateral proceedings do not affect finality for PCRA purposes | Court held collateral actions do not delay finality; statute controls |
| Whether Brady/governmental-interference exception applies | Davis: Commonwealth suppressed exculpatory materials (transcripts, medical reports, DNA, liver temp) | Commonwealth: Davis previously requested materials and failed to show discovery date or 60‑day filing/due diligence | Court held Davis failed to plead when he discovered evidence or show due diligence; exception not satisfied |
| Jurisdiction to reach merits despite untimeliness | Davis: merits should be considered under exception | Commonwealth: no jurisdiction absent valid timeliness exception | Court held no jurisdiction; dismissed petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Callahan v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (plain‑language finality rule: judgment final at end of direct review or expiration of time to seek it)
- Chester v. Horn, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 869 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Brady may trigger governmental‑interference exception but requires 60‑day filing and due diligence)
- Rojas v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (timing rule for expiration of direct‑review period)
- Lewis v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA jurisdictional principles)
- Little v. Commonwealth, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prisoner‑mailbox rule for filing)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)