2136 EDA 2019
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 11, 2020Background
- Appellant Anwaar Gettys was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse; this Court affirmed his direct appeal on March 13, 2009.
- Gettys filed a timely first PCRA petition on March 10, 2010; the petition was dismissed and this Court affirmed the dismissal on August 12, 2016.
- Gettys filed a second PCRA petition on April 5, 2018 asserting, inter alia, trial-counsel ineffectiveness for not objecting to gruesome photographs, and layered ineffectiveness of prior PCRA counsel and PCRA appellate counsel; he also sought unsealing of the photographs.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as patently untimely on June 25, 2019; Gettys appealed.
- The Commonwealth and the Superior Court concluded the petition was a second/subsequent petition and Gettys failed to meet any statutory timeliness exception; Pennsylvania law provides no equitable tolling for PCRA time limits.
- The Superior Court criticized the quality of prior appellate and PCRA representation but held it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits because the petition was untimely and no exception was established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to inflammatory photographs | Gettys: photos were minimally probative, highly prejudicial, and counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance | Commonwealth: merits cannot be reached because the petition is untimely and jurisdiction is lacking | Superior Court did not reach merits; petition dismissed as untimely for lack of jurisdiction |
| Ineffectiveness of prior PCRA counsel and PCRA appellate counsel | Gettys: layered/serial ineffectiveness excused filing delay and must be raised in second PCRA | Commonwealth: claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness do not establish jurisdiction where timeliness is lacking | Court held PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness does not confer jurisdiction absent a statutory exception; petition untimely |
| Motion to unseal photographic evidence | Gettys: unsealing is necessary to litigate the photographic-evidence claim | Commonwealth: procedural timeliness bars consideration | Court denied on jurisdictional grounds — dismissal affirmed because petition was untimely |
| Whether Ford requires recognizing serial PCRA petitions to raise PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness and thus confer jurisdiction | Gettys: Ford permits raising PCRA counsel ineffectiveness in a subsequent PCRA and that should permit review here | Commonwealth: Ford does not create a timeliness exception; jurisdiction still depends on statutory exceptions | Court applied Ford and related precedent to hold such claims do not create jurisdictional timeliness exceptions; petition remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (limits when PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness claims may be raised)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and equitable tolling is not available)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 105 A.3d 1234 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA time restrictions are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Shaw, 214 A.3d 283 (Pa. Super. 2019) (distinguishes Henkel where PCRA/appellate counsel ineffectiveness became apparent after court assumed jurisdiction)