Com. v. Golphin, L.
819 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Lenward E. Golphin was convicted of first‑degree murder by jury on February 25, 1986 and sentenced to life on May 6, 1986; his direct appeals concluded in 1988.
- Between 1988 and 2013 Golphin filed four unsuccessful PCRA petitions.
- On August 15, 2014 Golphin filed a pro se petition labeled as a state constitutional habeas corpus petition, alleging a defective criminal information and vagueness of the murder statute.
- The PCRA court treated the filing as a successive (fifth) PCRA petition, issued Rule 907 notice, and dismissed it on February 17, 2017 as untimely for lack of jurisdiction.
- Golphin did not invoke or plead any statutory exceptions to the PCRA time‑bar (interference, newly discovered facts, or newly recognized constitutional right) and appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Golphin) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition falls outside the PCRA and therefore is not subject to PCRA time limits | Golphin: labeled his filing as a state constitutional habeas corpus petition, not a PCRA filing | Commonwealth: PCRA subsumes habeas claims that fall within its ambit; the claims allege collateral and constitutional defects covered by the PCRA | Court: Petition properly treated as a successive (fifth) PCRA petition because claims fall within 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a) |
| Whether the claims may be heard on the merits despite untimeliness | Golphin: claims (defective information; statute void for vagueness) go to fundamental legality and thus should be considered | Commonwealth: petition is untimely (judgment final in 1988); petitioner failed to plead/prove any § 9545(b) timeliness exception | Court: Petition is untimely; no § 9545(b) exception pleaded or proven; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA subsumes habeas claims that fall within the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 916 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2007) (application of grace period for judgments final before PCRA amendments)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (burden rests on petitioner to plead and prove applicability of § 9545(b) exceptions)