Com. v. King, C.
Com. v. King, C. No. 844 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Chris King was convicted in 2001 of rape, IDSI, aggravated indecent assault, and corruption of minors; sentenced to 10¾ to 22 years; conviction affirmed on direct review and became final June 6, 2005.
- King filed a first pro se PCRA in 2005; denied, appellate review concluded August 11, 2010.
- King filed a second pro se PCRA on October 17, 2012, alleging his then-minor daughter (the victim) had recanted her trial testimony in a 2007 affidavit/letter.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed amended petitions and an evidentiary hearing was held (Oct. 22, 2015); the victim disavowed the 2007 recantation and reaffirmed her trial testimony.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second PCRA petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because King filed it more than one year after his judgment became final and more than 60 days after he could have timely presented the recantation claim.
- The Superior Court granted counsel’s Turner/Finley petition to withdraw after independent review and affirmed the dismissal, holding King failed to satisfy the PCRA timeliness exceptions and noting the evidentiary hearing undermined the recantation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim’s recantation creates reasonable doubt warranting relief | King: the 2007 affidavit and letter show the victim recanted, undermining the conviction | Commonwealth: the victim disavowed the recantation at the evidentiary hearing; trial testimony remains credible | Denied — court credited the victim’s disavowal and found no merit to the recantation claim |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in denying the PCRA petition as untimely | King: late filing excused because recantation was a newly discovered fact under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Commonwealth: petition filed more than one year after finality and more than 60 days after claim could have been presented; exceptions not satisfied | Denied — petition dismissed as untimely; King failed to file within 60 days of when claim could have been presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requires counsel’s independent review and no-merit letter for collateral appeals)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal on collateral appeal)
- Pitts v. Commonwealth, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (describing Turner/Finley requirements and appellate review)
- Fears v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standards for reviewing PCRA dismissal)
- Albrecht v. Commonwealth, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Hackett v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness requirement precludes merits review absent exception)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (application of 60-day rule for newly discovered facts)
- Widgins v. Commonwealth, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (counsel must advise petitioner of rights when seeking to withdraw)
- Wrecks v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural requirements for Anders/Finley notices and attachments)