Com. v. Ferrara, D.
Com. v. Ferrara, D. No. 1094 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- David E. Ferrara pleaded nolo contendere/guilty in 2002–2004 to incest and indecent assault charges, sought to withdraw pleas, and pursued direct appeals; convictions and sentences were ultimately affirmed on direct review.
- Ferrara filed multiple prior PCRA petitions and a habeas-style petition; each was dismissed as untimely or otherwise denied, and appeals were unsuccessful or discontinued.
- On May 16, 2016 Ferrara filed the instant (third/subsequent) PCRA petition; the PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss as untimely, denied leave to amend, and dismissed the petition on June 20, 2016.
- Ferrara, proceeding pro se, raised nine issues including timeliness, alleged illegal/excessive probation (27 years/lifetime probation), double jeopardy, failure to credit time served, ineffective assistance of counsel, and alleged defects in Megan’s Law proceedings.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the PCRA petition was timely or whether any statutory exceptions applied, and whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Ferrara contended his claims (e.g., illegal sentence) fall within a statutory exception so his 2016 petition is timely. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: petition is patently untimely and Ferrara failed to plead an applicable exception. | Petition untimely; exceptions not established; dismissal proper. |
| Legality/excessiveness of probation sentence (double jeopardy) | Ferrara argued probation totaled 27 years/lifetime and exceeded statutory limits, implicating double jeopardy and illegality. | Commonwealth: legality claims are reviewable but must be raised in a timely PCRA petition; untimely petition precludes review. | Legality claim not reachable because petition untimely; PCRA lacked jurisdiction. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to sentence/Megan’s Law issues | Ferrara alleged counsel failed to protect procedural rights and object to sentencing/Megan’s Law procedures. | Commonwealth: such claims are subject to PCRA timeliness requirements and were not timely raised. | IAC claims barred by untimeliness; not considered on merits. |
| Procedural defects in Megan’s Law proceedings / entitlement to credit for time served | Ferrara asserted procedural protections and credit issues that he says render sentence illegal. | Commonwealth: those are sentencing/merits issues that do not create a timeliness exception; must be timely raised. | Claims not cognizable because PCRA petition untimely; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Colavita v. Commonwealth, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (review of PCRA conclusions of law)
- Chester v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 932 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (legality of sentence reviewable but must be raised timely in PCRA)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality claims are subject to PCRA time limitations)
- Whitehawk v. Commonwealth, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discussing interplay of legality-of-sentence claims and PCRA timeliness)