Com. v. Gray, S.
3509 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- On November 28, 2002, Gray was involved in a bar fight, retrieved a crowbar, and later backed her car into Daisy Alvarez, killing her, and seriously injured Anna Romano; Gray then returned toward the scene with a rifle but was stopped by police.
- A jury convicted Gray of third-degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession of an instrument of crime; she was sentenced on January 28, 2004 to 25–50 years.
- Gray’s direct appeal and an initial PCRA petition were denied and those denials were affirmed on appeal.
- Gray’s judgment of sentence was previously held to be final on January 20, 2005, making a timely PCRA filing due by January 20, 2006.
- On February 3, 2015 Gray filed a motion for modification nunc pro tunc, treated by the court as a new PCRA petition and dismissed as untimely because she did not plead or prove an applicable time-bar exception.
- Gray attached an undated letter from a purported witness asserting self-defense; the court found she did not show the letter was newly discovered within the 60-day filing window or that due diligence could not have revealed the witness earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely or an exception to the one-year bar applied | Gray argued she possessed newly discovered witness documentation proving wrongful conviction | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely and no exception was pled or proven | Petition untimely; Gray failed to plead or prove a §9545(b)(1) exception |
| Whether the court should treat a nunc pro tunc sentence-modification motion as a PCRA petition | Gray filed a motion to modify sentence nunc pro tunc | Commonwealth treated the motion as a PCRA petition because it was filed after judgment was final | Court correctly treated the filing as a PCRA petition under precedent |
| Whether newly discovered evidence exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) applied | Gray relied on an undated letter from a purported previously unknown witness | Commonwealth asserted Gray failed to show the facts were unknown or that she exercised due diligence; also failed 60-day filing requirement | Gray did not establish the newly discovered facts exception or compliance with the 60-day rule |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition | Gray sought review of substantive claims raised in the untimely petition | Commonwealth argued lack of jurisdiction absent a timely-filed exception | Court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits because petition untimely and no exception proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (jurisdictional consequence of untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (requirements for pleading newly discovered facts exception and 60-day filing rule)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (any post-final-judgment petition treated as a PCRA petition)