Com. v. Minnefield, T.
Com. v. Minnefield, T. No. 1020 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- In Sept–Oct 2011 Appellant Tameika Minnefield physically abused her 4‑year‑old daughter (beltings causing contusions/abrasions) and failed to provide food.
- Charged in Jan 2012 with aggravated assault, simple assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and recklessly endangering another person.
- Pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child on Sept 5, 2012; sentenced in absentia to an aggregate 76 to 152 months on Oct 18, 2012.
- Direct appeal to the Superior Court affirmed the judgment; Appellant did not seek allocatur, so the judgment became final on Nov 12, 2013.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on July 24, 2015; counsel was appointed and later filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss and dismissed the untimely petition on Dec 31, 2015; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that no timeliness exception was pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was procedurally and substantively cognizable given timeliness rules | Minnefield did not plead a timeliness exception; impliedly sought relief on PCRA claims | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued petition was untimely (filed >1 year after finality) and no statutory exception was alleged | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction because no timeliness exception was pled; PCRA dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral proceedings)
- Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit brief procedure in PCRA appeals)
- Muzzy v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Turner/Finley obligations explained)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness is crucial in PCRA appeals)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 143 A.3d 418 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Wiley v. Commonwealth, 966 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2009) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)
- Derrickson v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2007) (failure to plead timeliness exception deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Pollard v. Commonwealth, 911 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing in absentia does not alter PCRA timeliness calculation)