Com. v. Mable, S., Jr., Com. v. Mable, S., Jr. No. 1819 MDA 2016

In 1994 Steven Junior Mable Jr. shot and killed the victim; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and he received a life sentence.
Mable’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 1997, making the judgment final.
Over the years Mable filed multiple PCRA petitions and other postconviction filings and received no relief.
In 2015 Mable submitted several documents to the court titled a Motion to Vacate for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum (plus supplement), and a Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment; the PCRA court treated them as one PCRA petition.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and then denied the consolidated filing as untimely under the PCRA; Mable appealed the denial.
On appeal the Superior Court considered whether the filings were properly characterized as PCRA matters and whether the court had jurisdiction to reach the merits; it concluded the PCRA was the proper vehicle and the petition was untimely with no applicable exception, so dismissal was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the filings are cognizable outside the PCRA (e.g., habeas)	Mable argued his filings were habeas/civil in nature and not subject to PCRA timeliness	Commonwealth/PCRA court treated the filings as postconviction claims cognizable under the PCRA	Court held the claims are PCRA-cognizable; habeas is not a viable vehicle when PCRA could provide relief
Whether the court had jurisdiction despite untimeliness	Mable contended timeliness rules did not apply because filings were not PCRA petitions	Commonwealth argued petition was facially untimely and no exception was pled or proven	Court held the PCRA time bar is jurisdictional; petition was untimely and no exception applied, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the sole means for postconviction relief when it can provide a remedy)
Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2004) (habeas corpus is subsumed by the PCRA when PCRA can afford relief)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (courts lack authority to address untimely PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no equitable exceptions to the PCRA statute of limitations)
Commonwealth v. Mable, 685 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 1996) (prior direct-appeal disposition)