Com. v. Mansfield, E.
594 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Eric Mansfield pleaded guilty in May 2007 to rape and related offenses (CP-38-CR-1534-2006) and was convicted at trial in June 2007 of sexually assaulting a cellmate (CP-38-CR-2232-2006).
- On November 14, 2007, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 18–42 years; Mansfield filed a timely Motion to Modify Sentence which was denied December 3, 2007.
- Mansfield’s judgment of sentence became final on January 2, 2008 (expiration of time for direct appeal); he did not file a direct appeal.
- Mansfield filed a pro se PCRA petition on July 18, 2016 (over seven years after the one-year deadline), later amended and counseled to allege ineffective assistance of trial/plea counsel (failure to file a motion to modify sentence as instructed, failure to file a direct appeal, failure to advise re: PCRA rights) and that his guilty plea was not knowing/voluntary.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, found the petition facially untimely and not plead under any statutory exception, and dismissed without an evidentiary hearing; Mansfield appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely or an exception applies | Mansfield: counsel’s failure to file direct appeal and failure to inform him of PCRA rights tolled or excused the timeliness requirement | Commonwealth: petition is facially untimely; alleged counsel errors do not invoke statutory exceptions; no 60-day compliance | Court: Petition was untimely (judgment final 1/2/08); Mansfield did not plead/prove any §9545(b)(1) exception, so court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether ineffectiveness of counsel excused untimely filing | Mansfield: ineffective assistance (no appeal filed, not told of PCRA) prevented timely filing | Commonwealth: ineffective assistance of defense counsel does not constitute government interference or newly discovered fact to rescue timeliness | Court: Allegations of counsel ineffectiveness do not satisfy statutory exceptions; they do not excuse the time-bar |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the claim that counsel failed to file an appeal | Mansfield: court should hold hearing to resolve claim he instructed counsel to appeal | Commonwealth: no hearing required because petition was untimely and no timeliness exception pled | Court: No hearing required; court lacked jurisdiction absent a pleaded/proved exception |
| Whether Mansfield exercised due diligence to invoke the after-discovered-fact exception | Mansfield: only recently discovered counsel didn’t file appeal; thus exception applies | Commonwealth: discovery was possible within the one-year window (simple inquiry); no due diligence | Court: Failure to contact counsel or clerk shows lack of due diligence; exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanible v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 426 (discussing standard of review for PCRA proceedings)
- Treiber v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 435 (deference to PCRA court credibility findings)
- Roney v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 595 (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 440 (PCRA review principles)
- Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 760 A.2d 50 (untimely PCRA petitions deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Perrin v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 1284 (burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)
- Walters v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 589 (PCRA exceptions must be invoked within 60 days)
- Gamboa–Taylor v. Commonwealth, 753 A.2d 780 (untimely petitions and scope of exceptions)
- Wharton v. Commonwealth, 886 A.2d 1120 (ineffective assistance does not overcome timeliness)
- Pursell v. Commonwealth, 749 A.2d 911 (defense counsel not "government official" for exception)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 746 A.2d 585 (ineffectiveness claims do not save untimely PCRA claims)
- Carr v. Commonwealth, 768 A.2d 1164 (due diligence requirement for after-discovered evidence exception)