Com. v. Frezzell, S.
Com. v. Frezzell, S. No. 306 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 28, 2017Background
- Appellant Shaimik C. Frezzell was convicted of robbery of a motor vehicle, robbery, and related offenses, and sentenced to 10–20 years on October 27, 2010.
- This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in 2011 for lack of preservation of issues in a Rule 1925(b) statement; no allowance petition to Supreme Court filed.
- Frezzell’s first PCRA petition was filed February 3, 2012; counsel was appointed and the petition was denied after a 2012 hearing.
- New counsel was appointed after counsel withdrawal; Frezzell filed subsequent pro se PCRA petitions (January and September 2013); Turner/Finley withdrawal was granted in December 2013; petition ultimately dismissed in August 2014 with no appeal.
- Frezzell continued to file pro se motions including Alleyne-based sentencing claims and post-sentence relief requests; a June 2016 discovery-inspection request was denied as appeals were exhausted.
- On December 9, 2016, Frezzell filed his fourth pro se PCRA petition; the PCRA court dismissed January 12, 2017 as untimely and barred by prior litigations; Frezzell’s attempt to appeal was filed February 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the fourth PCRA petition timely filed under 9545(b)? | Frezzell contends exceptions apply and timeliness should be tolled. | Commonwealth argues petition untimely and none of the exceptions apply. | Untimely; no applicable timeliness exception proven. |
| Do the claims qualify as previously litigated | Some claims may not have been previously litigated in a final sense. | Claims raised were previously litigated or waived. | Yes; claims were raised or procedurally barred; barred by prior litigation. |
| Does the prison mailbox rule salvage timeliness | Appeal documents were timely deposited; mailbox date supports timely filing. | Postmark dates show untimely filing; remand not required. | Untimely; remand declined; no timely filing shown. |
| Did the petition present a cognizable claim despite timeliness | Potential claims of prosecutorial misconduct and trial errors. | Claims lack merit and do not overcome timeliness rules. | Claims lacked merit and timeliness safeguards; affirmed dismissal. |
| Was the PCRA court correct to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to finality | Court should consider merits under exceptional circumstances. | Timeliness is jurisdictional and strictly construed. | Court correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness strictness; exceptions required)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prison mailbox rule for pro se appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner/Finley procedures for counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988) (en banc; post-conviction counsel withdrawal standards)