Com. v. Edwards, N.
Com. v. Edwards, N. No. 2760 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Nicholas Edwards was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and related offenses and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
- His direct appeals concluded in early 2010; his judgment of sentence became final on May 6, 2010 (expiration of time to seek certiorari).
- Edwards filed a first PCRA petition; denial of that petition was affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in July 2015.
- While the first PCRA appeal was pending, Edwards filed a habeas petition (claiming no written sentencing order under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8)); he later filed a second PCRA petition pro se on December 29, 2015.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, found the second petition untimely and that no statutory exception applied, denied habeas relief based on the certified record showing the sentence, and dismissed the petition; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edwards) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | The petition should be considered timely under PCRA exceptions (claimed counsel malfeasance; prisoner mailbox rule for an earlier mailed petition) | Judgment became final May 6, 2010; petition filed Dec 29, 2015 and is untimely; Edwards failed to prove any §9545(b)(1) exception or file within 60 days of when exception could be raised | Petition is untimely; no statutory exception proved; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether ineffective assistance of prior PCRA counsel excused the time-bar | Edwards argued ineffectiveness of prior PCRA counsel should permit review | Prior decisions reject using ineffective PCRA counsel to circumvent timeliness; petitioner must still meet statutory exceptions and timing | Court held ineffective PCRA counsel does not excuse the PCRA time-bar and Edwards failed to meet exceptions |
| Habeas corpus claim re: absence of written sentencing order under 42 Pa.C.S. §9764(a)(8) | Edwards argued detention unlawful because no written sentencing order exists in DOC records | Section 9764 governs transfer procedures and DOC recordkeeping, not the authority to detain; certified trial court record and docket reflect the sentence | Habeas relief denied; certified record sufficed to validate detention |
| Prisoner mailbox rule / alleged lost mailing (Aug 4, 2015) | Edwards claimed he mailed a timely second PCRA petition that was lost in mail and thus deemed timely under mailbox rule | Even if mailing occurred, Edwards still failed to invoke a statutory exception within the 60-day window and did not satisfy §9545(b)(1) requirements | Mailbox assertion irrelevant because no applicable exception was established; petition untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (discusses PCRA standards and review)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (holds ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel does not create a timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA review and legal error standard)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance claims cannot circumvent PCRA timeliness)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§9764 does not create a prisoner remedy for DOC record omissions; docket/transcript can validate sentence)
- Rivera v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 837 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for habeas corpus denial)