Com. v. Dunn, C.
543 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Clinton Dunn pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) in March 2011 to sexual offenses including unlawful contact with a minor, statutory sexual assault, incest, and corruption of minors; sentencing was partially deferred for an SOAB report.
- In October 2011 the court designated Dunn a sexually violent predator and imposed the negotiated aggregate sentence of 17.5–50 years incarceration.
- Dunn did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on November 13, 2011.
- Dunn filed multiple untimely PCRA petitions (first filed March 28, 2013; others in 2014 and 2015). The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notices and dismissed the petitions (most recently January 29, 2016).
- On appeal to the Superior Court Dunn argued the PCRA court erred by not applying a timeliness exception, contending his plea/sentence was unconstitutional; the Superior Court affirmed dismissal for untimeliness because Dunn did not plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred in failing to apply a timeliness exception so the merits (constitutional challenge to plea/sentence) could be reached | Dunn argued an unconstitutional guilty plea/sentence cannot be enforced and thus an exception to the PCRA time bar applies | Commonwealth argued Dunn’s petitions were untimely and Dunn did not plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions to the one‑year filing rule | Court held petitions untimely; Dunn did not invoke or prove any § 9545(b) exception, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal and review of factual and legal determinations)
- Chester v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 714 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1998) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims do not overcome an untimely PCRA petition)
- Hart v. Commonwealth, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for reviewing PCRA dismissals)
- Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 894 A.2d 716 (Pa. 2006) (review standards referenced in PCRA timeliness context)
- Finley v. Pennsylvania, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural guidance for counsel filing a Finley letter under PCRA)