Com. v. Haggerty, L.
552 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- In 2004 a 14-year-old accused Lonnie D. Haggerty of sexual abuse; Haggerty later pled guilty to statutory sexual assault (Dec. 2005), moved to withdraw that plea, and was tried and convicted on multiple sexual-offense counts in April 2006.
- Haggerty was sentenced July 24, 2006 to an aggregate term of 9 to 20 years and designated a sexually violent predator under Megan’s Law.
- He failed to file timely post-sentence motions or a direct appeal but the trial court restored direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc; the Superior Court affirmed his judgment on direct appeal in 2008.
- Haggerty filed a timely PCRA in 2009; after proceedings and appeals that litigation concluded with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying review in 2012.
- On or after July 22, 2016 Haggerty filed multiple pro se pleadings styled as coram nobis, habeas, motions to enforce plea/non-prosecution agreements, and claims challenging conviction and sentence; the PCRA court treated them as a serial, untimely PCRA petition and denied relief on timeliness grounds.
- Haggerty appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding his petition filed roughly seven years after the PCRA filing deadline was untimely and he failed to plead any of the statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar.
Issues
| Issue | Haggerty's Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / PCRA jurisdiction | His filings (coram nobis/habeas/motions) should be considered on merits; sentence illegality or other defects allow review | Any post-final-judgment collateral relief is governed by PCRA; petition was filed about seven years late and no exception was pled | Petition untimely; no statutory exception alleged or proven; court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Enforcement of plea / non-prosecution agreement | Sought specific performance/enforcement of an alleged non-prosecution/plea agreement breached by Commonwealth | Claims were available on direct appeal or in earlier PCRA; cannot be raised in an untimely PCRA without exception | Denied — not reviewable because of untimeliness |
| Trial court’s alleged improper reinstatement of charges (jurisdiction/due process) | Trial court sua sponte ordered reinstatement/amended information in a procedurally improper way causing jurisdictional defects | Procedural and jurisdictional contentions could have been raised earlier; untimely now | Not considered due to PCRA time-bar |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence at trial was insufficient as to some offenses | Sufficiency claims must be raised on direct appeal or timely PCRA | Not considered because petition untimely |
| Legality/discretion of sentence | Sentence was illegal/void and always subject to correction; thus merits should be considered despite timing | Legality claims are subject to PCRA timeliness rules; equitable tolling not available; must plead statutory exception | Court lacks jurisdiction to consider legality claim in untimely petition absent exception |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (direct appeal counsel) | Appellate counsel failed to raise meaningful issues, denying meaningful appellate review | Ineffective-assistance claims do not rescue an otherwise untimely PCRA petition | Not considered because untimely petition does not meet statutory exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (any petition filed after judgment is treated as a PCRA petition; untimely petitions must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception to the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (legality-of-sentence claims in untimely PCRA petitions are jurisdictionally barred absent an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (claims of ineffective assistance do not save an untimely PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 156 A.3d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for timeliness is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate court may affirm on any proper basis)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants must follow rules but courts may exercise discretion not to quash defective briefs)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing pro se documents)