Com. v. Larkin, R.
235 A.3d 350
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Appellant Ron Larkin pled guilty on January 3, 2012 to two counts of first-degree murder and one firearms offense; sentenced to consecutive life terms for murder and concurrent 3½–7 years for the firearms count. He did not file a direct appeal.
- Larkin filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; appointed counsel filed a Finley letter and the PCRA court dismissed the petition in 2014; this Court affirmed in 2015.
- On June 29, 2018 Larkin filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," which the PCRA court treated as a serial PCRA petition and dismissed as untimely on August 20, 2018.
- Larkin filed a pro se notice of appeal on September 18, 2018 listing multiple lower-court docket numbers, triggering Walker/Pa.R.A.P. 341 issues and this Court’s referral of the Walker issue to the merits panel.
- The en banc Superior Court concluded a court-breakdown (misinformation in the PCRA order advising "Petitioner has thirty (30) days") excused strict Walker compliance, so the appeal was preserved; on the merits the Court affirmed dismissal because the 2018 filing was an untimely serial PCRA petition and Larkin failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Larkin) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether a single notice of appeal listing multiple docket numbers violates Walker/Pa.R.A.P. 341 | Larkin conceded Walker applies but argued quash should be excused due to court-system misinformation | Walker requires separate notices; but court-breakdown can excuse noncompliance | Court (en banc) declined to quash because PCRA order misadvised appellant of appellate procedure (court breakdown) |
| 2) Whether PCRA court properly treated Larkin’s habeas petition as a PCRA petition | Larkin framed his filing as a writ of habeas corpus challenging jurisdiction | Commonwealth: PCRA subsumes habeas where PCRA could provide relief | Court treated the filing as a serial PCRA petition (properly) |
| 3) Whether the 2018 petition was timely (serial PCRA) | Larkin maintained jurisdictional defects excuse timeliness or afforded relief | Commonwealth: judgment final Feb 2, 2012; serial petition filed 2017/2018 is untimely absent statutory exception | Court held petition untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to reach merits |
| 4) Whether alleged lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction qualifies as a PCRA timeliness exception | Larkin argued trial/presentation defects meant PCRA exceptions apply | Commonwealth: jurisdictional claim does not meet statutory exceptions absent new constitutional right/other criteria | Court held subject-matter-jurisdiction claim does not invoke statutory timeliness exceptions; Larkin failed to plead/prove any exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal when multiple dockets are implicated)
- Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Super. 2019) (interpreted Walker to require single-docket notice; later overruled here to extent inconsistent)
- Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019) (court-system misinformation can excuse Walker defects)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the exclusive post-conviction remedy; habeas cannot be used to evade PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction claims do not per se satisfy PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for counsel’s no-merit letter in PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 114 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court lacks jurisdiction to address untimely PCRA claims)