Com. v. Harris, D.
2357 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Dana Harris was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to deliver crack cocaine and sentenced on July 28, 2011 to 56 months to 10 years imprisonment.
- Harris failed to file a direct appeal within 30 days; he later sought leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal which was treated as a PCRA petition and denied on appeal in an earlier PCRA proceeding (decided Dec. 11, 2012).
- Harris filed a second PCRA petition on July 2, 2013, alleging (among other things) that the PCRA filing period should be tolled while he was represented by allegedly ineffective counsel and that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the jury instructions.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition on July 1, 2015; Harris appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court held Harris’s second petition was untimely under the PCRA one-year filing rule, found no applicable statutory exceptions, and rejected equitable tolling as unavailable for PCRA time limits; it therefore affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA filing period should be tolled during the period a petitioner is represented by allegedly ineffective counsel (equitable tolling) | The filing period should exclude the time during which counsel’s continued ineffective assistance prevented full and fair litigation of claims, allowing timely filing within one year after that period | PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling; only statutory exceptions may extend the period | Court held equitable tolling is unavailable; Harris’s petition was untimely and no statutory exception applied |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the court’s jury instructions | Counsel failed to object to or challenge jury instructions that emphasized the offense of conviction, amounting to ineffective assistance | Even if argued on the merits, the Superior Court could not reach substantive claims because the petition was untimely and jurisdictionally barred | Court declined to reach merits due to lack of jurisdiction over untimely petition; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA filing period not subject to equitable tolling; only statutory exceptions apply)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (attorney abandonment can support timeliness exception when facts were unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (petitioner must plead and prove specific facts showing a claim was raised within the 60-day window for exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (petitions filed after judgment of sentence is final should be treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (calculation of when a judgment of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes)