Com. v. Mitchell, H.
1405 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- In April 2004 Howard Mitchell committed an armed robbery; he was apprehended with a loaded handgun, stolen property, cash, controlled substances, and ID.
- Mitchell pled guilty and was originally sentenced under the Three Strikes law; after a successful 2006 PCRA challenge to an illegal mandatory sentence, he entered a new negotiated plea and was sentenced to an aggregate 15–30 years on February 22, 2007.
- Mitchell filed a timely pro se PCRA in 2008; counsel was appointed, filed a “no-merit” letter and motion to withdraw, and the PCRA court dismissed the petition and allowed counsel to withdraw. The Superior Court affirmed in 2009.
- Mitchell filed multiple subsequent PCRA petitions (2014, 2016) raising Alleyne and ineffective-assistance claims; those petitions were dismissed as untimely or otherwise without relief.
- In January 2017 Mitchell filed a pro se petition titled a writ of habeas corpus challenging the 2008 dismissal and alleging PCRA counsel fraud/ineffectiveness; the PCRA court treated it as a fourth PCRA petition and dismissed it as untimely.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the habeas petition was properly treated as a PCRA petition, the PCRA time-bar applied, and Mitchell failed to plead a timely exception allowing review on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell's habeas petition could avoid PCRA timeliness rules | Mitchell argued titling his filing "habeas corpus" and alleging due process violations (fraud by PCRA counsel) places it outside the PCRA time-bar | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the PCRA subsumes habeas relief when PCRA can provide a remedy; labeling does not avoid the statute | Court held the petition was properly treated as a PCRA petition and PCRA time limits apply |
| Whether ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel excuses an untimely petition | Mitchell contended PCRA counsel’s alleged fraud/ineffectiveness deprived him of due process and thus the petition should be considered | Commonwealth argued claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness do not excuse untimeliness and must have been raised timely in the original proceeding | Court held mere claim of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness does not save an otherwise untimely PCRA petition |
| Whether any statutory exception to the PCRA one-year time limit was pleaded | Mitchell relied on vague due process/fraud assertions, asserting the 2008 proceedings were improper | Commonwealth asserted no statutory exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) was pled or proved within the required 60 days | Court held Mitchell failed to plead facts satisfying any statutory exception; petition untimely and jurisdictionally barred |
| Whether the PCRA court abused discretion by granting counsel’s withdrawal based on a no-merit letter | Mitchell claimed the court erred in relying on the no-merit letter and that withdrawal process violated due process | Commonwealth maintained the withdrawal procedure and dismissal were proper and previously affirmed | Court affirmed, finding no basis to disturb the prior proceedings and dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA subsumes habeas corpus where PCRA can provide relief)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional; exceptions strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (serial untimely PCRA petitions cannot be treated as extensions of timely petitions; ineffective assistance of counsel does not excuse untimeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (one-year PCRA limitation is not subject to equitable tolling; exceptions control)
- Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA is exclusive remedy for collateral challenges when it can provide relief)