Com. v. Jacobs, E.
250 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 2, 2016Background
- Eugene Jacobs was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder, robbery, theft, and possession of an instrument of crime; he received a life sentence for murder and additional terms for other offenses.
- Jacobs’s direct appeal concluded in 1999; his judgment of sentence became final that year.
- Jacobs filed a first PCRA petition in 2000 which was dismissed in 2002; that dismissal was affirmed on appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance in 2009.
- On May 14, 2012, Jacobs filed a second (serial) PCRA petition more than one year after his judgment became final and invoked the PCRA exception for a “newly recognized constitutional right,” relying on Martinez v. Ryan.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely on January 5, 2016; Jacobs appealed pro se and this Court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Jacobs argued the petition was timely under the §9545(b)(1)(iii) “newly recognized constitutional right” exception because Martinez announced a rule that excused counsel-based defaults | Commonwealth argued Martinez did not announce a new constitutional right that would satisfy the statutory exception, so the petition is untimely and jurisdictionally barred | Court held Martinez did not recognize a new constitutional right and therefore Jacobs’s petition was time-barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Adequacy of pleading to invoke §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Jacobs relied on Martinez and filed within 60 days of that decision | Commonwealth argued Jacobs failed to plead the required elements that a new constitutional right was recognized and held retroactive by the deciding court | Court held the statute requires pleading and proof that a right was newly recognized and held retroactive before filing; Martinez does not meet that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (federal equitable rule potentially excusing procedural default where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective; not a new constitutional right)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (interpreting §9545(b)(1)(iii) to require that the asserted right be both newly recognized and already held retroactive when petition is filed)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and must be addressed before reaching merits)