Com. v. Diaz, C.
Com. v. Diaz, C. No. 1132 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 22, 2017Background
- Diaz was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder for killing his former wife and her husband; direct appeals and prior PCRA petitions were denied.
- He filed a petition labeled as a writ of habeas corpus in December 2015 challenging the criminal information and sentence.
- Diaz argued the information failed to state essential elements of first-degree murder and that 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102 is unconstitutionally vague about parole ineligibility, rendering his conviction and confinement illegal.
- The trial court treated the filing as a PCRA petition, found it untimely, and issued a notice of intent to dismiss for failure to plead a time-bar exception.
- Diaz replied asserting his claim was not cognizable under the PCRA; the court denied relief and Diaz appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was properly treated as a PCRA petition and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition styled as habeas corpus is cognizable outside PCRA | Diaz: his confinement is illegal due to defective information and void/vague sentencing statute, so habeas is proper | Commonwealth: PCRA is the exclusive remedy for post-conviction claims; claims must be raised in a PCRA petition | Court: Petition is cognizable under the PCRA and thus must meet PCRA timing rules; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether criminal information deprived trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Diaz: information failed to recite essential elements of first-degree murder so court lacked jurisdiction | Commonwealth: information and statutes provided adequate accusation and notice; an information need not specify degree of murder | Court: Subject-matter jurisdiction and formal accusation requirements were satisfied; claim cognizable but untimely |
| Whether §1102 is unconstitutionally vague re: parole ineligibility | Diaz: §1102 does not expressly state parole ineligibility, creating vagueness and due process violation | Commonwealth: Parole rules are set elsewhere and statutes read together give adequate notice; claim is a sentencing/ due-process matter within PCRA | Court: Due-process sentencing claim is cognizable under PCRA; not a basis to avoid PCRA time-bar |
| Whether petition could escape PCRA one-year time bar by labeling as habeas | Diaz: labeling as habeas should allow consideration on merits | Commonwealth: Labeling cannot evade PCRA exclusivity and time limits | Court: Title cannot circumvent PCRA; petition treated as PCRA and dismissed for untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is exclusive remedy; habeas cannot evade time-bar)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (claims based on known facts are not eligible for PCRA timing exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Hatchin, 709 A.2d 405 (Pa. Super. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction requires court competence and a formal accusation)
- Commonwealth v. Little, 314 A.2d 270 (Pa. 1974) (formal and specific accusation requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 852 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2004) (information need not specify degree of murder)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1994) (statutes read together can supply required notice; vagueness claim rejected)