Com. v. Melo, A.
Com. v. Melo, A. No. 1617 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- Melo was convicted after a jury trial of rape, indecent assault, and related offenses involving a 13-year-old; he was sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison.
- Direct appeal affirmed; allocator denied, and appellate history includes unpublished memorandum and additional post-verdict proceedings.
- In June 2012 Melo pro se filed a timely PCRA petition, later amended to a counseled petition; in October 2013 the court dismissed the PCRA petition.
- April 2014 Melo sought to proceed pro se on appeal and for remand to challenge PCRA counsel effectiveness; Grazier hearing granted, and Melo proceeded pro se on appeal.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of the PCRA petition in 2015 after resolving issues related to ineffective assistance of counsel on the PCRA petition.
- In March 2016 Melo filed a new PCRA petition challenging Alleyne/Neiman timeliness arguments; counsel appointed in April 2016; Turner/Finley letter filed in July 2016; court planned to dismiss under Rule 907; Melo filed a notice of appeal on September 27, 2016; no compliant Rule 1925(b) statement appears to have been filed; the PCRA court later ruled the petition untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the PCRA petition timely or untimely? | Melo contends the timing should be excused by new law. | The petition was filed well beyond the statutory deadline and cannot be saved by late changes in law. | Petition deemed untimely; no retroactive exception applied. |
| Did Melo preserve his claims for appellate review by filing a proper Rule 1925(b) statement? | Attempted to pursue issues on appeal after being granted pro se status and hearing. | Failure to file a compliant Rule 1925(b) statement waives all issues on appeal. | All issues were waived due to failure to file a compliant Rule 1925(b) statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) waiver requires timely, precise statements; issues waived if not raised)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (liberal treatment of pro se filings does not excuse failure to comply with appellate rules)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (preservation principle: timely statement of matters on appeal required)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may quash or dismiss appeal for nonconformance with appellate rules)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Supreme Court Rule 13 provides ninety-day deadline for review in U.S. Supreme Court; affects finality)