Com. v. Mercado-Rosario, R.
1940 MDA 2018
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2019Background
- Appellant Ramon L. Mercado-Rosario shot Heidi Mercado-Rosario in the head, was charged with multiple offenses, and entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and recklessly endangering another person; other charges were nolle prossed.
- Sentenced June 29, 2016 to concurrent terms: 5–10 years for possession (consecutive) and 1–2 years for recklessly endangering; no direct appeal was filed.
- Appellant filed three pro se PCRA petitions: the first (Nov. 2016) was withdrawn with counsel’s advice; the second (Aug. 2017) challenged sentence legality and was dismissed as untimely; no appeal followed that dismissal.
- The third PCRA petition (Sept. 25, 2018) repeated the same challenges (illegal/mandatory minimum sentence, ineffective assistance, layered ineffectiveness).
- PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the third petition on Oct. 26, 2018 for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness; Appellant appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Appellant argued sentence was illegal and counsel ineffective; filed third PCRA raising same claims | Petition filed after one-year deadline and Appellant did not plead a statutory timeliness exception | Court held the petition was untimely and Appellant failed to plead any §9545(b)(1) exception, so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Legality/mandatory minimum of sentence | Claimed he should have received 2½–5 years and that 5–10 is an unconstitutional mandatory minimum | Sentence legality claim is cognizable but still subject to PCRA timeliness rules | Held claim is untimely; legality argument cannot be considered absent a timeliness exception |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (plea counsel) | Counsel coerced him into an involuntary plea and failed to prevent illegal sentence | Ineffectiveness claims are subject to PCRA and must be timely; no exception pleaded | Held court lacked jurisdiction to address ineffective assistance because petition was untimely |
| Layered/previous counsel ineffectiveness | Asserted cumulative/layered ineffectiveness by all prior counsel, including prior PCRA counsel | Same timeliness defense; failure to plead exception | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. Commonwealth, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but must follow rules)
- Rivera v. Commonwealth, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules)
- Albrecht v. Commonwealth, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Rojas v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (finality date for judgment when direct appeal time expires)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (court cannot correct errors in untimely PCRA petitions absent statutory exception)