Com. v. Manus, G.
1413 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Glenn H. Manus was convicted in 2008 of multiple sexual offenses against six minors and received an aggregate sentence of 18½ to 39 years plus 30 years probation; direct and prior collateral appeals were denied.
- Manus filed a third pro se PCRA petition in September 2016 alleging newly discovered evidence: an OOR "Attestation of Nonexistence of Records" stating no written designation on file authorizing Deputy DA Michael Galantino to prosecute (per 42 Pa.C.S. § 8931(i)).
- Manus argued the absence of a designation rendered the informations/charges void and that prior counsel were ineffective for failing to raise that issue.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely under the PCRA time bar; Manus appealed.
- The court below and this Court focused on the jurisdictional timeliness requirements: a PCRA petition must be filed within one year of finality unless one of the statutory exceptions is timely pled (within 60 days of discovery).
- The courts held Manus failed to plead or prove any timeliness exception (including newly discovered facts or governmental interference) or why the OOR attestation could not have been discovered earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manus) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petition falls within timeliness exceptions | The OOR attestation was newly discovered on Feb 5, 2016 and shows prosecutions were unauthorized; thus satisfies §9545(b)(1)(ii) and other exceptions | The petition is facially untimely; Manus did not explain why evidence could not have been discovered earlier or why he filed within 60 days of discovery | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Manus failed to prove any timeliness exception |
| Whether informations were void for lack of written designation under §8931(i) | Because no designation was filed authorizing Galantino, the criminal informations were invalid and charges void | Court treated claim as substantive but jurisdictional timeliness bars relief; evidence of designation issues was publicly discoverable earlier | Claim not reached on the merits; time-bar dismissal affirmed |
| Whether prior counsel were ineffective for not raising designation issue | Counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and litigate the authorization issue | Ineffectiveness claim is previously litigated and does not excuse untimeliness; such claims do not satisfy timeliness exceptions | Ineffective-assistance claim not cognizable here (previously litigated / time-bar) |
| Whether governmental interference exception applies | Manus briefly invoked government interference due to alleged OOR/records issues preventing earlier discovery | No adequate pleading or proof of governmental interference preventing timely filing | Exception not met; petition remains time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction over untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (60-day filing requirement and due diligence for newly discovered facts)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (claims previously litigated are not cognizable on PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance does not excuse PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)