Com. v. Day, A.
815 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- In 2006 Anthony M. Day was convicted of rape by forcible compulsion and related offenses arising from the drugging and rape of his 14‑year‑old half‑sister; while incarcerated he solicited a fellow inmate (a confidential informant) to kill the victim.
- This Court affirmed Day’s convictions on direct appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review and the judgment became final in June 2010.
- Day filed a first PCRA petition (2011) that was denied; appellate review concluded against him in 2014.
- Day filed a second pro se PCRA petition on December 19, 2014, later amended by counsel, raising ineffective-assistance claims about three trial counsel omissions.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on February 6, 2017; Day appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that Day did not invoke or prove any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Day's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Jurisdiction of second PCRA petition | The petition should be heard despite filing more than one year after the judgment became final; Day suggested actual innocence might toll the limit (citing federal cases) | The petition was filed over four years after finality and Day did not plead a statutory exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) | Petition is untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to challenge statements while detoxing | Trial counsel should have moved to suppress statements made to police while Day was detoxing from oxycodone | Even if meritorious, claim cannot overcome the jurisdictional time bar because petition untimely and no statutory exception pleaded | Not reached on the merits due to untimeliness |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to contest nighttime warrant execution | Counsel should have challenged execution of a nighttime warrant | Same: claims barred by untimeliness; no statutory exception pleaded | Not reached on the merits due to untimeliness |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to seek exclusion of recorded informant conversation | Counsel should have sought exclusion of the recorded solicitation of the victim’s murder | Same: claims barred by untimeliness; no statutory exception pleaded | Not reached on the merits due to untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 163 A.3d 470 (Pa. Super. 2017) (PCRA timeliness and exceptions framework)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse PCRA timeliness requirements)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (federal standard on actual‑innocence gateway to equitable tolling — cited by appellant but not controlling for PCRA timeliness)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for actual‑innocence gateway to review — federal precedent referenced by appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania rule that PCRA filing period is not subject to equitable tolling and may only be extended by statutory exceptions)