Com. v. Figueroa, M.
2978 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- On September 18, 2011, Manuel Figueroa shot and killed Daniel Velez; he was tried and convicted of third‑degree murder and recklessly endangering another person (REAP).
- Jury trial ran January 22–25, 2013; sentence imposed April 22, 2013: 20½ to 42 years for murder and 6–24 months for REAP, consecutive.
- Post‑sentence: Figueroa pro se filed motions and untimely notices of appeal; trial counsel had not filed post‑sentence motions or a direct appeal and later moved to withdraw based on the retainer scope.
- This Court quashed Figueroa’s direct appeal as untimely in August 2014 but noted he could seek reinstatement of appellate rights via the PCRA.
- Figueroa filed a counseled PCRA petition on February 20, 2015 (after the one‑year PCRA deadline). The PCRA court granted reinstatement of appellate rights; post‑sentence motions were then denied, and Figueroa appealed.
- The Superior Court held the PCRA petition untimely, rejected the asserted exception, concluded the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate appellate rights nunc pro tunc, and quashed the appeal without reaching the evidentiary claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petition was timely / whether statutory timeliness exception applies | Figueroa argued the court’s quashal of his direct appeal and the Supreme Court’s denial of review were "facts" unknown to him triggering the newly‑discovered‑facts exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Commonwealth: petition was filed after the one‑year deadline; judicial decisions are not "facts" under the exception, so no jurisdiction | Petition untimely; exceptions not met; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate appellate rights; appeal quashed |
| Sufficiency and weight of the evidence for murder and REAP | Figueroa challenged sufficiency and weight of convictions (claims raised on reinstated appeal) | Commonwealth: merits not reached because appellate rights not properly reinstated due to untimeliness | Merits not addressed because appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA one‑year filing rule)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2008) (timing for PCRA when an untimely direct appeal is filed)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial decisions are not "facts" for the newly‑discovered‑facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 928 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to restore appellate rights when petition is untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (60‑day filing requirement to invoke PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedure for waiver of counsel and self‑representation determination)