Com. v. Jackson, A.
Com. v. Jackson, A. No. 1195 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- In 1995 Jackson pled guilty to indecent assault and corruption of minors for sexual conduct with a six‑year‑old; he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 11½ to 23 months and did not appeal.
- Jackson was paroled in 1996, had a parole violation in 1997, was re‑paroled later in 1997, and his maximum sentence expired on March 13, 1998.
- Jackson filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2013 (and counsel sought habeas relief re: SORNA); the PCRA court denied relief for lack of jurisdiction but later ordered he not be listed under SORNA.
- Jackson filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on April 19, 2016; the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and denied relief on May 16, 2016.
- Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw; Jackson opposed and sought to proceed pro se. The Superior Court found counsel complied with withdrawal procedures.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA denial on the ground Jackson was ineligible for PCRA relief because he was not serving a sentence when he filed the 2016 petition (sentence had expired in 1998).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is Jackson entitled to PCRA relief despite sentence expiration? | PCRA ineligibility where sentence has expired; court lacks jurisdiction. | Jackson sought PCRA relief; argued collateral consequences and sought relief. | Held: Not eligible; PCRA requires petitioner be serving sentence; court lacked jurisdiction. |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Counsel argued appellate/PCRA counsel found no meritorious IAC claim in Turner/Finley review. | Jackson contended trial/plea counsel were ineffective. | Held: No review on merits because petitioner ineligible for PCRA; counsel permitted to withdraw after proper no‑merit procedures. |
| 3. Newly discovered/exculpatory evidence claim | Counsel evaluated and found no viable newly exculpatory evidence. | Jackson asserted there was newly exculpatory evidence warranting relief. | Held: No merits reached due to PCRA ineligibility; dismissal affirmed. |
| 4. Claim that guilty plea was unlawfully induced | Counsel found plea‑inducement claim meritless after review. | Jackson argued plea was unlawfully induced and should be vacated. | Held: No relief because PCRA inapplicable; appellate counsel withdrawal approved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA relief requires petitioner be serving a sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA court loses jurisdiction when sentence expires while petition pending)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2008) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking withdrawal in collateral appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 911 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing documents)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2002) (accepting reasonably verifiable evidence of deposit date under prisoner mailbox rule)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 703 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1997) (PCRA precludes relief for expired sentences)