Com. v. Graziano, E.
2260 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Edward Graziano was convicted of first‑degree homicide after shooting Dominic Capocci; he fled to Florida and was arrested. Prior PCRA appeals were denied; Graziano filed multiple successive collateral petitions.
- In 2010–2013 Graziano filed (1) a PCRA invoking Graham; (2) a supplement invoking Martinez; (3) a supplement invoking Miller; and (4) a habeas corpus petition in the Civil Division alleging his judgment of sentence was flawed for lack of a valid written conviction entry.
- The Civil Division transferred the habeas petition to the Criminal Division. The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss addressing all claims and denied relief on June 15, 2016. Graziano appealed.
- The PCRA court treated the habeas petition as challenging the DOC’s authority to detain because of an absent written sentencing order (relying on Joseph v. Glunt) and also addressed the merits of the habeas claims despite concluding the PCRA claims were untimely.
- The Superior Court agreed the PCRA court mischaracterized Graziano’s habeas claim but held the habeas claim actually challenged the underlying conviction and therefore was subsumed by the PCRA; because Graziano’s PCRA petition was untimely and no time‑bar exception was pleaded, the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization: Is Graziano’s habeas claim outside the PCRA? | Graziano: he challenged lack of an official, signed/entered judgment of conviction (habeas relief), not DOC’s detention authority. | Commonwealth: court treated the claim as a DOC detention defect (Glunt) and reviewed merits outside PCRA framework. | Held: The court mischaracterized the claim, but substance attacked the validity of the conviction so it is governed by the PCRA. |
| Jurisdiction/timeliness: May the court decide the claim on the merits? | Graziano: focused on habeas relief; did not (in briefing) invoke PCRA exceptions. | Commonwealth: PCRA time bar applies; court concluded claims untimely and also addressed habeas merits. | Held: PCRA time bar is jurisdictional; because no exception was pleaded/satisfied, neither trial nor appellate court had jurisdiction to reach merits; denial affirmed on jurisdictional ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziano v. Commonwealth, 927 A.2d 651 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prior appellate history of Graziano's conviction)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (habeas claim alleging DOC lacked written sentencing order)
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013) (civil habeas venue/transfer principles regarding sentencing documents)
- Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (when claims implicate the judgment of sentence they must be brought under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness and jurisdictional bar)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment rule regarding life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life without parole for juveniles)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (procedural default/failure of counsel in initial collateral review may excuse default)