Com. v. McCrae, G.
Com. v. McCrae, G. No. 3530 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- Gregory McCrae was convicted in 1998 of aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person and sentenced to 12½–25 years imprisonment.
- Direct appeal was affirmed by this Court on December 1, 1999; judgment of sentence became final at the end of December 31, 1999.
- First PCRA petition filed October 24, 2000 was dismissed; appeals exhausted by 2005.
- McCrae filed a second PCRA petition on December 17, 2009, styled as a "motion to correct illegal sentence," arguing the trial court focused unduly on revenge/protection of the public in sentencing.
- PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice November 15, 2010 and dismissed the second PCRA petition on February 23, 2011; McCrae later had his appellate time reinstated nunc pro tunc and appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding the petition was untimely under the PCRA’s one-year jurisdictional time-bar and McCrae did not plead any statutory exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition was timely | McCrae argued sentence was illegal and sought relief in 2009 | Commonwealth argued petition was filed more than one year after judgment became final and no exception was pled | Petition was untimely; judgment became final 12/31/1999 and petition filed 12/17/2009, so time-bar applies |
| Whether an "illegal sentence" claim excuses the time-bar | McCrae contended sentencing error made petition non-waivable | Commonwealth relied on Fahy and related precedent that illegality claims still must meet PCRA timing rules | Illegality-of-sentence claims are reviewable but must satisfy PCRA timeliness or an exception; McCrae did not plead any exception |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the petition despite procedural defects | McCrae indirectly argued entitlement to review via reinstatement of appeal rights | Commonwealth maintained lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness | Court lacks jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PCRA timeliness and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness is threshold jurisdictional issue)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (courts must address PCRA timeliness sua sponte when necessary)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA time requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (burden to plead and prove statutory exceptions to timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts without jurisdiction cannot grant relief on untimely PCRA petitions)