Com. v. Mines, K.
399 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- In 1983 Mines participated in a robbery scheme; during the incident Samuel Dash shot Mines and was then shot and killed by a co-conspirator. Mines was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Mines’s direct appeal was resolved in 1989; his judgment of sentence became final April 24, 1989.
- Mines filed multiple post-conviction petitions and a federal habeas petition over the years; prior PCRA petitions were dismissed as untimely or otherwise denied.
- Mines filed his seventh PCRA petition in May 2012, asserting a claim based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 plea‑counsel cases Lafler and Frye.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely in January 2016; Mines appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and that Lafler/Frye do not announce a new, retroactive right for purposes of the PCRA timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mines) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Mines’s Lafler/Frye‑based ineffective assistance claim | Mines argued he was entitled to relief under Lafler and Frye and that the court should hold a hearing | Commonwealth argued there were no material factual issues and the claim was untimely on its face | Court: No error — no absolute right to hearing where only legal issue raised and record resolves it |
| Whether Mines’s 2012 PCRA petition is timely or fits a §9545(b)(1) exception (new constitutional right) | Mines argued Lafler and Frye created a new constitutional right triggering the §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Commonwealth argued Lafler/Frye did not create a new, retroactively applicable right and thus petition is time‑barred | Court: Petition untimely; Lafler and Frye do not create a new retroactive right for PCRA tolling; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (defendant entitled to relief when ineffective assistance of counsel caused rejection of a favorable plea offer and worse outcome at trial)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (counsel must communicate plea offers and can be ineffective for failing to do so)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Lafler/Frye applied Sixth Amendment to plea bargaining but did not create a new right for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and exceptions must be pleaded and proven)