Com. v. Knight, J.
Com. v. Knight, J. No. 1008 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Appellant James Steven Knight pled guilty (Aug 16, 2012) to third‑degree murder for the fatal beating of a 19‑month‑old and was sentenced to 180–420 months imprisonment.
- This Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur, and the judgment became final on July 21, 2014.
- Knight filed a first PCRA petition on April 23, 2015; the PCRA court denied it on July 2, 2015, and counsel was permitted to withdraw.
- Knight attempted to appeal the denial but the Clerk declined to process his August 3, 2015 notice of appeal for fee defects; Knight then sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status, which the court denied on August 18, 2015 as nothing was pending.
- Knight filed a second pro se PCRA petition on February 22, 2016, alleging governmental interference (denial of IFP obstructed his right to appeal) and raising claims about inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Knight failed to plead a timeliness exception and had waived the IFP challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely / whether court erred requiring pleading of timeliness exceptions | Knight contends his February 2016 filing sought nunc pro tunc relief from denial of appeal and the court improperly treated it as a second untimely PCRA petition | Commonwealth argues the petition was a second PCRA filing and thus subject to the one‑year deadline and exceptions | Court held the petition was facially untimely; Knight failed to plead a §9545(b) exception and lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether governmental interference (§9545(b)(1)(i)) excused untimeliness | Knight asserts clerk’s refusal to process his appeal and the court’s denial of IFP constituted government interference preventing timely appeal | Commonwealth argues Knight did not timely invoke the exception within 60 days and the record does not support interference excusing delay | Held Knight failed to file within 60 days of when claim could have been presented and thus did not satisfy §9545(b)(2) timing for exceptions |
| Whether the IFP denial should have been reconsidered or treated as basis for nunc pro tunc relief | Knight argues the court’s refusal to grant IFP improperly obstructed his appeal rights and merits nunc pro tunc relief | Commonwealth notes Knight waited months and did not promptly seek relief or appeal the IFP denial | Held claim was waived for failure to timely seek reconsideration/appeal; Knight ‘‘sat on his rights’’ and thus waived the issue |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge inaccuracies in presentence investigation report | Knight claims trial counsel was ineffective for not properly challenging inaccuracies in the PSI | Commonwealth treats collateral claims as waived/untimely because underlying petition is jurisdictionally untimely | Held court did not reach merits due to untimeliness; claim not considered because PCRA petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no deference to legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no right to PCRA hearing when record resolves issues)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness is jurisdictional for PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (application of §9545(b) exceptions and 60‑day filing rule)