Com. v. McCollum, N.
Com. v. McCollum, N. No. 839 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- McCollum was convicted in April 2006 of rape of a child and related offenses; sentenced to 21–42 years; direct appeals were denied and collateral PCRA relief was previously denied.
- He filed federal habeas relief in 2012, which was dismissed.
- On April 18, 2016 McCollum filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in state court claiming actual innocence, an alibi, and that the Commonwealth used false evidence.
- The trial court dismissed the petition on May 2, 2016; McCollum timely appealed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- The Superior Court treated the petition as a successive PCRA petition and found it facially untimely because McCollum’s judgment of sentence became final in October 2008 and the one-year PCRA filing period had long expired.
- McCollum did not plead or prove any of the statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar; the Superior Court therefore concluded it lacked jurisdiction and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition should be considered a PCRA petition | McCollum argued he sought habeas relief for actual innocence and false evidence | Commonwealth argued PCRA is the exclusive remedy for postconviction collateral attacks | Court held the petition is properly treated as a successive PCRA petition (PCRA is sole avenue) |
| Whether the petition was timely | McCollum did not raise a timeliness exception; asserted substantive claims of innocence and false evidence | Commonwealth argued the petition was filed long after the one-year PCRA deadline | Court held the petition was facially untimely (judgment final Oct. 2008; petition filed 2016) |
| Whether any timeliness exception applies | McCollum failed to plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions | Commonwealth argued no exception was pleaded or proven | Court held McCollum did not meet his burden to plead/prove an exception; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether the merits could be reviewed despite procedural defects | McCollum sought review of his innocence and evidentiary claims | Commonwealth maintained court lacked jurisdiction due to PCRA time-bar | Court declined to reach merits and affirmed dismissal on procedural grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA provides mechanism for those asserting they were convicted of crimes they did not commit)
- Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 2015) (if PCRA provides remedy, it is the exclusive collateral avenue and PCRA time limits apply)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (petitions filed after judgment of sentence are treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 863 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (petitioner must plead and prove one of the timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Clouser, 998 A.2d 656 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate court may affirm on any valid basis, even if trial court relied on different reasoning)