Com. v. Kirk, D.
247 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- DeAnthony Kirk was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and related offenses for a multi-victim shooting during an armed robbery; sentenced to three concurrent life terms on November 1, 2011.
- Kirk’s judgment of sentence was affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on November 26, 2013; his judgment became final in February 2014 after the certiorari period expired.
- Kirk filed a timely first PCRA petition in June 2014; counsel filed a Turner no‑merit letter, the petition was dismissed without a hearing on October 15, 2014, and Kirk’s appeal of that dismissal was dismissed for failure to file a brief on February 17, 2016.
- Kirk contended that prison officials delayed mailing his appellate brief: he says he gave the brief to prison staff on January 19, 2016, but it was not transmitt ed to the court until March 16, 2016.
- Kirk filed a pro se second PCRA petition on July 28, 2016, invoking the governmental-interference exception (prisoner mailbox rule) to excuse untimeliness; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Kirk's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kirk’s second PCRA petition is timely under the governmental-interference exception to the PCRA time-bar | Prison mailing delay (prisoner mailbox rule) prevented timely presentation of his appellate brief and thus interfered with his PCRA rights | Kirk did not file his second PCRA within 60 days of when his interference claim could first have been presented; thus exception is untimely | Dismissal affirmed: governmental-interference exception not timely invoked under §9545(b)(2) |
| When the 60-day filing window for invoking an exception begins to run | Begins when the claim could first have been presented; Kirk posits it began when prison failed to mail his brief (Jan–Mar 2016) | Court: account for pendency/reconsideration; window began after denial of reconsideration (April 6, 2016) | Court treated denial of reconsideration as start point; Kirk still filed beyond 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA court findings and conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule: filing date is date delivered to prison authorities for mailing)
- Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 683 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1996) (recognition and application of the prisoner mailbox rule)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (a subsequent PCRA petition generally cannot be filed while appeal of earlier petition is pending)