Com. v. Dockery, T.
2987 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- In 1988 Timothy Dockery and his brother entered a Philadelphia home and killed four people; Dockery was convicted in 1991 of four counts of second-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to life without parole.
- Dockery’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 1992; his judgment of sentence became final July 2, 1992.
- Dockery filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (1994, 1999, 2008); the first was dismissed on the merits, subsequent petitions were dismissed as untimely.
- In December 2014 Dockery filed his fourth pro se PCRA petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial lawyer (former-Judge Willis W. Berry Jr.) based on information in a prison newsletter letter describing Berry’s later misconduct.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on September 3, 2015; Dockery appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness de novo, concluded the petition was untimely, and held Dockery failed to invoke the newly-discovered-facts exception because Berry’s alleged misconduct post-dated the trial and did not establish a conflict existing at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dockery’s 2014 PCRA petition is timely or fits an exception | Dockery: the newly-discovered-facts exception applies because he only learned in Oct. 2014 (via Graterfriends) of Berry’s misconduct and conflict | Commonwealth: petition is plainly untimely; Berry’s misconduct occurred after the 1991 trial and could not have created a conflict at trial | Petition untimely; exception not met—dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Berry had a conflict of interest at time of trial sufficient to support IAC claim | Dockery: Berry’s later criminal/judicial misconduct shows an inherent conflict and bias dating to trial | Commonwealth: conduct underpinning Berry’s discipline/conviction began after 1991 and was not unlawful when he was defense counsel; no evidence of conflict at trial | No newly-discovered facts establishing a trial-period conflict; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 35 A.3d 766 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness is crucial to PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (questions of law in PCRA appeals reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Dockery, 613 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 1992) (prior direct-appeal disposition)
- Commonwealth v. Dockery, 701 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 1997) (prior PCRA appeal disposition)
- Commonwealth v. Dockery, 803 A.2d 790 (Pa. Super. 2002) (affirming dismissal of untimely PCRA)
- In re Berry, 979 A.2d 991 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2009) (disciplinary/related findings concerning Willis W. Berry Jr.)