Com. v. Kahle, T.
843 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Kahle was convicted after a January 2015 jury trial of Unlawful Contact with Minor—Sexual Offense, Aggravated Indecent Assault, Corruption of Minors, and Indecent Assault, with an aggregate sentence of 39–264 months.
- Appellant voluntarily discontinued his direct appeal after a praecipe filed December 14–21, 2015, leading to a discontinuance by the Superior Court.
- Counsel subsequently withdrew on February 12, 2016, and Kahle filed his first PCRA petition on January 19, 2017, through privately-retained counsel.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year finality rule, and declined to address the merits.
- On appeal Kahle challenges (i) the date used to calculate timeliness, (ii) whether nunc pro tunc restoration of appellate rights was available, (iii) the untimeliness issue under 9545(b)(1)(i)/(ii)/(iii), (iv) applicability of 9545(b)(1)(ii), and (v) whether the merits should be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness date calculation | Kahle argues the date used (Dec. 21, 2015) miscalculates finality due to counsel errors. | Court correctly held finality upon discontinuance of the direct appeal, so Dec. 21, 2015 is proper. | No error; finality date correctly fixed. |
| Nunc pro tunc restoration of appellate rights | Discontinuance without Anders briefing or consent warrants restoration of appellate rights. | Appellate rights restoration not warranted; no Anders issues or improper withdrawal were shown. | Not warranted; no relief. |
| Statutory exceptions to time bar (9545(b)(1)) | Exceptions apply due to government interference or unknown facts. | Counsel did not constitute government interference; no unknown facts under 9545(b)(1)(i)/(ii) shown. | Untimely petition not saved by exceptions. |
| Eligibility under 9545(b)(1)(ii) for unknown facts | Facts supporting claims were unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence. | Facts were known or reasonably discoverable; no due-diligence exception. | Exception not satisfied. |
| Merits of PCRA petition | Court should review the merits if timeliness is resolved in his favor. | Because timeliness is fatal, merits review is improper. | Merits not reached due to time-bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finality when direct appeal is discontinued; base for PCRA clock)
- Commonwealth v. Conway, 706 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Super. 1997) (direct appeal discontinuance marks finality)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (counsel's failure to file an appellate brief may qualify as lack of knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (governmental interference exception not include defense counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timing and exceptions analysis guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA timeliness and factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (deference to PCRA court findings)