Com. v. Heagy, T.
362 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- On October 7, 2014, Tyler T. Heagy pleaded guilty to multiple offenses and was sentenced to time served to 23 months’ incarceration.
- Heagy’s direct appeal was quashed for failure to file timely post-sentence motions or a timely notice of appeal; no allowance petition was filed.
- Heagy filed a pro se PCRA petition on March 16, 2016; counsel was appointed and an amended petition followed; a hearing was held and briefs were ordered.
- The Commonwealth informed the PCRA court that Heagy’s maximum sentence expired on August 25, 2016.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition on February 8, 2017; Heagy appealed.
- The court concluded the PCRA petition was untimely and, alternatively, Heagy was ineligible for relief because he was no longer serving a sentence when relief was sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Heagy sought PCRA relief filed March 2016 | Commonwealth: judgment became final Nov 2014; one-year filing deadline expired Nov 2015 | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to hear merits |
| Exception to timeliness requirement | Heagy did not invoke or prove any statutory exception | Commonwealth argued no exception pleaded or proven | No exception pleaded; untimely petition dismissed |
| Eligibility for PCRA relief after sentence expiration | Heagy argued proceeding was pending when sentence expired and sought relief regardless | Commonwealth: PCRA requires petitioner to be currently serving a sentence to obtain relief | Court held petitioner ineligible once sentence expired; dismissal proper |
| Effect of prior quash of direct appeal | Heagy implied ongoing proceedings warranted relief | Commonwealth relied on Brown and related precedent to fix finality date | Judgment final 30 days after sentencing; one-year window applied accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264 (Pa. 2008) (one-year PCRA filing period begins on expiration of time for seeking direct review when no timely direct appeal is filed)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness is jurisdictional under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (timeliness jurisdictional principle)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA relief requires petitioner to be currently serving sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (petitioner ineligible for PCRA relief after sentence completion)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 703 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1997) (PCRA precludes relief for expired sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Heagy, 136 A.3d 1032 (Pa. Super. 2016) (direct appeal quashed for untimeliness)