Com. v. Johnson, C.
Com. v. Johnson, C. No. 1852 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 30, 2017Background
- Johnson was convicted in 1977 of multiple offenses and sentenced to 28.5–57 years in prison.
- He filed a seventh pro se PCRA petition in 2015, which the court dismissed as untimely.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turne/Finley no-merit letter and moved to amend it after an evidentiary hearing.
- The PCRA court held the seventh petition was untimely and did not prove any statutory exception.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the timeliness rules are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the seventh PCRA petition | Johnson argues exceptions apply under 9545(b)(1) | Commonwealth argues petition is patently untimely | Untimely; exceptions not proven |
| Government interference exception | Johnson relies on interference as reason for delay | Commonwealth contends no government interference proven | Not proven under 9545(b)(1)(i) |
| Ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel | Johnson claims counsel was ineffective for various reasons | Counsel provided competent representation | No prejudice; ineffective assistance not shown |
| Turner/Finley no-merit letter and amendments | Letter defective; amendment improperly allowed | Letters deemed proper and amendments allowed | No reversible error; letter and amendment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness and jurisdictional rules)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (reaffirmed strict timeliness framework for PCRA petitions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard requires prejudice)