Com. v. Minor, T.
2555 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 14, 2016Background
- Tamarr Minor pled guilty on October 10, 2008 to two counts of attempted homicide for shooting a constable and an apartment manager during an attempted eviction.
- At sentencing on December 23, 2008, the court imposed consecutive terms: 8–16 years (plus 4 years probation) on one count and 5–10 years (plus 10 years probation) on the other.
- Minor did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final January 22, 2009.
- Minor previously filed a PCRA petition in 2010 that the PCRA court purported to grant nunc pro tunc; this Court later held the petition untimely, vacated that relief, and the Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- On May 14, 2014 Minor filed a second (subsequent) pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed, sought withdrawal under Turner/Finley, and the PCRA court dismissed the petition on August 12, 2015.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Minor’s 2014 petition untimely and that he failed to plead or prove any exception to the PCRA one-year filing requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Minor) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Minor argued he discovered rights violations via legal research and filed PCRA in 2014 | Commonwealth argued petition was filed well after the one-year deadline and no timeliness exception applies | Petition untimely; no exception shown; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Newly discovered facts exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Minor claimed "newly discovered evidence" based on learning his rights at the law library | Commonwealth argued Minor only found a new source for previously known facts and failed to show due diligence or timely filing within 60 days | Court held Minor failed to show he could not have discovered facts earlier and did not file within 60 days of discovery; exception not satisfied |
| Ability to litigate claims on merits despite timeliness | Minor sought review of multiple ineffective-assistance and other substantive claims | Commonwealth maintained the court may not reach merits when PCRA petition is jurisdictionally time-barred | Court declined to address merits because of lack of jurisdiction over untimely petition |
| Adequacy of PCRA counsel under Turner/Finley process | Minor argued PCRA counsel was ineffective for not developing or amending claims and not calling witnesses | Commonwealth relied on procedural bar and that counsel followed withdrawal procedures | Court accepted Turner/Finley withdrawal and did not reach ineffective-assistance-on-PCRA-counsel claims due to timeliness bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA order)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Zuniga, 772 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2001) (judgment of sentence becomes final 30 days after sentencing when no direct appeal filed)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional time limits govern court competency to adjudicate PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirements for newly discovered facts/due diligence under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))