Com. v. Harris, W.
799 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 2, 2016Background
- William Harris was convicted by jury (robbery; PIC) on November 12, 2003 and sentenced on February 2, 2004 to 25–50 years plus five years probation.
- Direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on August 30, 2007, making the judgment final on November 29, 2007 (after the certiorari period expired).
- Harris filed a first PCRA petition on January 30, 2008; after remand and proceedings the first petition was dismissed June 15, 2012.
- Harris filed a second PCRA petition on April 8, 2013 — more than four years after the one-year statutory filing deadline.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on November 10, 2015 that it would dismiss the petition as untimely; Harris did not timely respond and the petition was dismissed February 10, 2016.
- Harris appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and Harris failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time‑bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition was timely | Harris filed a 2013 PCRA petition asserting collateral relief (did not claim timeliness) | Commonwealth argued petition was filed well after one-year deadline | Petition untimely — judgment final Nov 29, 2007; one-year deadline Nov 29, 2008; 2013 filing is untimely |
| Whether Harris pleaded a statutory exception to the PCRA time‑bar | Harris did not plead any of the three statutory exceptions | Commonwealth argued no exception was alleged or proven | No exception pleaded or proven; court lacked jurisdiction to consider merits |
| Whether an untimely PCRA petition can be reached on the merits despite lack of court analysis | Harris did not argue a specific equitable basis to excuse untimeliness on appeal | Commonwealth relied on jurisdictional nature of PCRA timeliness | Court reiterated timeliness is jurisdictional and must be resolved before merits; could not reach merits |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing was proper under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 | Harris did not respond to 907 notice or request a hearing | Commonwealth supported dismissal under Rule 907 for untimely petition | Dismissal without hearing affirmed given untimeliness and lack of response |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (describing one-year PCRA filing deadline and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness implicates jurisdiction and must be resolved before merits)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (courts may consider timeliness sua sponte because it is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timing requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (failure to satisfy PCRA time requirements deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (petitioner must plead and prove elements of any relied‑upon timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (untimely PCRA petitions cannot be entertained; courts lack jurisdiction)