Com. v. Everett, J.
228 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- Everett was convicted in 1987 of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime and sentenced to life plus a concurrent 2½–5 year term; direct appeal concluded in 1988.
- In 2012 Everett filed his sixth PCRA petition, asserting (among other things) Martinez-based relief for prior ineffective-assistance claims and that his life sentence was imposed without statutory authorization.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on December 4, 2015 as untimely; Everett appealed pro se.
- The Commonwealth Court treated the petition as facially untimely because the judgment became final in December 1988 and the PCRA one-year filing rule applies to all petitions.
- Everett invoked the newly recognized constitutional-right exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)) based on Martinez and argued the illegality of his life sentence; the court evaluated both claims under the PCRA timeliness framework.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding Martinez does not satisfy the PCRA time‑bar exception and that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the legality-of-sentence claim because the petition was untimely and no exception was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Everett) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez overcomes PCRA time bar | Martinez requires relief for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and creates a retroactive constitutional rule that excuses untimeliness | Martinez does not fit §9545(b)(1)(iii); Pennsylvania courts treat Martinez as federal habeas law that does not meet the PCRA’s newly-recognized-right exception | Martinez does not satisfy §9545(b)(1)(iii); petition remains untimely |
| Whether sentence of life imprisonment was illegal and reviewable despite untimeliness | Life sentence was imposed without statutory authority (needed capital-case designation); illegality claims can be raised anytime | Even legality claims must satisfy PCRA timeliness or an exception; no exception was proven here | Claim not reviewable for lack of PCRA jurisdiction due to untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Saunders, 60 A.3d 162 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Martinez does not satisfy PCRA § 9545(b)(1)(iii))
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (ineffective-assistance claims do not rescue an otherwise untimely petition)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (illegality-of-sentence claims in untimely PCRA petitions are jurisdictionally unreviewable)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 95 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. 2014) (if no statutory authorization exists, sentence is illegal but still subject to PCRA time limits)