Com. v. Diodoro, A.
Com. v. Diodoro, A. No. 1932 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- In 2011 Anthony Diodoro pleaded guilty to 25 counts of possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 12.5 to 25 years; he did not file a direct appeal.
- He filed a timely motion for modification of sentence (denied March 1, 2012) and two prior PCRA petitions: one filed July 2012 (denied May 23, 2013) and a second filed September 2014 (dismissed as untimely; dismissal affirmed on appeal and cert. denied).
- On April 1, 2016 Diodoro filed a third PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at plea, an illegal sentence, lack of jurisdiction, and claiming he was mentally incompetent during proceedings to invoke the PCRA timeliness exception.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss, found the petition untimely and that the claimed mental incompetence was bald and unsupported, and dismissed the petition without a hearing on June 7, 2016.
- Diodoro appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that he failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception required for jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / PCRA jurisdiction | Diodoro: third PCRA filed April 1, 2016 should be considered despite being beyond one‑year because exceptions apply | Commonwealth / PCRA court: petition filed well beyond one year after judgment became final; no pleaded/proven exception so court lacks jurisdiction | Dismissal affirmed — petition untimely and jurisdictionally barred |
| Mental incompetence exception (42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Diodoro: was mentally incompetent during all court proceedings, so facts were "unknown" and exception applies | PCRA court: bare allegation with no factual support; issue not raised in appellate brief and thus waived | Rejected — assertion frivolous, unsupported, and waived |
| Ineffective assistance re: plea / breach of plea bargain | Diodoro: counsel ineffective for failing to object to Commonwealth’s alleged plea‑bargain breach and sentence exceeding statutory maximum | Commonwealth: these claims could have been raised earlier and are waived; no showing why facts were previously unknown | Rejected — claims waived and do not satisfy timeliness exception |
| Illegal sentence claim | Diodoro: sentence was illegal (exceeded statutory maximum) | Commonwealth: even illegal sentence claims are subject to PCRA timeliness rules and do not excuse late filing | Rejected — illegal sentence claim does not bypass the one‑year time bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (trial court lacks power to address untimely PCRA claims absent exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (statutory PCRA time limits are mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Grafton, 928 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2007) (illegal sentence claims do not evade PCRA timeliness requirements)