Com. v. Latimore, J.
Com. v. Latimore, J. No. 1914 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- In 1985 Jerome Latimore pled guilty to rape, burglary, and related offenses after a knifepoint home invasion and was sentenced to 15–40 years’ imprisonment; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Latimore filed a pro se PCHA petition in 1987 (his first post‑conviction filing); the court denied it in 1988.
- On August 14, 2015 Latimore filed a second, pro se PCRA petition challenging the legality of his sentence based on Commonwealth v. Sessoms.
- The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely on May 24, 2016; Latimore timely appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was timely (a jurisdictional question) and whether Latimore pleaded any statutory timeliness exception.
- The court concluded Latimore’s judgment became final in June 1985, the PCRA one‑year filing deadline passed in June 1986, and Latimore’s 2015 petition was facially untimely and did not meet any statutory exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition is timely | Latimore: filed within 60 days of discovering Sessoms in prison library | Commonwealth: petition filed ~30 years after judgment final; untimely | Petition is untimely; court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether a Sessoms‑based claim fits a timeliness exception | Latimore: Sessoms created a right he only recently learned and thus satisfies exception | Commonwealth: Sessoms is decisional law, not a new "fact," and claim could have been raised earlier | Sessoms does not create a Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) fact; claim waived |
| Whether legality‑of‑sentence claims bypass PCRA time limits | Latimore: legality claims are never waived | Commonwealth: legality claims still must meet PCRA time limits or an exception | Legality claims are reviewable but must be timely or meet an exception; Latimore failed to do so |
| Whether prior PCHA petition bars raising this claim now | Latimore: did not raise Sessoms issue previously because he only learned it later | Commonwealth: Sessoms was decided while the 1987 PCHA petition was pending, so claim could have been raised then | Claim is waived under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) for failure to raise in prior proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sessoms, 532 A.2d 775 (Pa. 1987) (challenge to sentencing guidelines referenced by Latimore)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (post‑decisional court law is not a "fact" for Section 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality‑of‑sentence claims must still meet PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no right to PCRA hearing when record resolves timeliness)