Com. v. Gay, M.
3487 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Marcus Gay was convicted of first-degree murder and PIC on October 31, 1996, and sentenced to life plus concurrent 3–5 years on November 4, 1996.
- Gay did not file a direct appeal; he later filed a PCRA petition in 1998 to restore direct-appeal rights and then appealed; this Court affirmed on August 29, 2001, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance March 27, 2002.
- Gay subsequently filed several unsuccessful PCRA petitions (not relevant here).
- On December 30, 2015 Gay filed a pro se petition styled as a writ of habeas corpus, alleging defects in the criminal information and that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The trial court treated the filing as a PCRA petition, issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and dismissed the petition on October 11, 2016 as untimely; Gay appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was a PCRA petition and was facially untimely because Gay’s judgment became final on June 26, 2002, so a timely PCRA would have been filed by June 26, 2003, and Gay did not invoke any timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Gay's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition should be treated outside the PCRA | Gay framed his filing as habeas corpus seeking relief for jurisdictional defects | The Commonwealth argued PCRA is the sole vehicle for collateral review and subsumes habeas unless PCRA cannot afford relief | Court held PCRA subsumes habeas claims here; treating filing as PCRA was correct |
| Whether the petition was timely under the PCRA | Gay did not argue a statutory timeliness exception | Commonwealth argued petition was filed long after the one-year filing period and no exception was pleaded | Court held petition was facially untimely (final 6/26/2002; petition filed 12/30/2015) |
| Whether any § 9545(b)(1) exception applied | Gay did not plead or prove any exception (governmental interference, new facts, new constitutional right) | Commonwealth argued no exception alleged or proven | Court held Gay failed to meet burden to invoke any exception; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing was appropriate | Gay responded to Rule 907 but did not establish timeliness exception | Commonwealth supported Rule 907 dismissal as petition untimely | Court held dismissal without hearing was proper because petition was untimely and exceptions not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA is the sole means for collateral relief, subsumes habeas)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA subsumes other remedies unless it cannot afford relief)
- Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 155 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 156 A.3d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2017) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)