Com. v. Dobbin, T.
199 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Torey Dobbin pled guilty in Dauphin County (three dockets) on April 13, 1998 and was sentenced to 7½ to 20 years; he was later sentenced in Cumberland County on June 23, 1998. He did not file a direct appeal.
- Years later federal robbery convictions led to an enhanced federal sentence in 2014 based on prior state convictions; the Third Circuit affirmed in December 2015.
- Dobbin filed a pro se PCRA petition on May 20, 2015; counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for not coordinating sentencing dates between Dauphin and Cumberland Counties and for failing to advise Dobbin of plea consequences.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (May 10, 2016) and denied relief on December 28, 2016, noting the petition was likely untimely but deciding claims on the merits.
- Dobbin appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the PCRA court’s decision was supported by the record and free of legal error, and whether the PCRA petition met timeliness requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Dobbin implicitly relied on newly discovered facts; checked §9545(b)(1)(ii) box | Petition was filed ~16 years late and no statutory exception was pleaded or proven | Petition was untimely and petitioner failed to invoke/prove an exception; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to coordinate sentencing dates | Trial counsel was ineffective for not arranging concurrent/same-day sentences to avoid federal career-offender enhancement | Ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse PCRA time-bar; no allegation counsel abandoned Dobbin on appeal | Claim does not overcome timeliness bar; court properly rejected it |
| Failure to vacate robbery conviction (no transcript of plea colloquy) | The robbery plea colloquy did not mention robbery so conviction should be vacated | Record did not support vacating conviction; procedural default and untimeliness | Court declined relief; claim not properly raised within PCRA time limits and lacked record support |
| Proper remedy / jurisdiction question | Relief sought based on substantive errors of plea/sentencing | Court maintained it lacked jurisdiction due to untimeliness and disposed on merits anyway | Superior Court affirmed dismissal; no error found in PCRA court’s disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Lawson v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA findings will not be disturbed if record supports them)
- Alderman v. Commonwealth, 811 A.2d 592 (Pa. Super. 2002) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Marshall v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (statutory timeliness requirements and exceptions under §9545)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 883 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness implicates jurisdiction)
- Gamboa-Taylor v. Commonwealth, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance does not itself excuse PCRA time-bar)
- Breakiron v. Commonwealth, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (ineffective-assistance allegations will not circumvent timeliness)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (limited circumstances where counsel abandonment may trigger newly discovered-fact exception)
- Crews v. Commonwealth, 863 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)