Com. v. Morris, D.
79 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Dereyk L. Morris pleaded guilty on February 25, 1997 to third-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and received an aggregate 25–50 year state sentence to run concurrently with an existing 17-year federal sentence. He did not file a direct appeal.
- Morris filed multiple post-conviction petitions between 2009 and 2015 raising claims about ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and that his robbery and murder convictions should have merged for sentencing.
- The PCRA court dismissed earlier petitions as untimely; Morris continued to litigate and in August 2015 filed a petition titled "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence—Merger Issues," alleging Double Jeopardy and illegal separate sentences.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, corrected Morris’s filing date after he showed mailing, but on December 16, 2015 dismissed the petition as untimely under the PCRA time bar.
- The court held Morris’s conviction became final March 27, 1997, so any PCRA petition had to be filed within one year unless it met one of the statutory exceptions; the court found Morris did not establish any exception.
- Because the petition was untimely and no exception applied, the court declined to reach the merits of merger, Double Jeopardy, ineffectiveness, time-credit, or appointment-of-counsel claims and affirmed dismissal on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morris) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition filed Aug 27, 2015 (mailed earlier) should be considered timely / filing date corrected | Morris’s judgment was final Mar 27, 1997; petition clearly filed outside 1-year PCRA window and no timely exception shown | Dismissed as untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to address merits |
| Illegal sentence / merger of offenses | Murder and robbery should have merged; separate sentences illegal under Double Jeopardy | Legality-of-sentence claims are reviewable in PCRA but must meet timeliness rules; Morris did not meet an exception | Not reached on merits due to untimeliness |
| Double Jeopardy claim | Separate convictions/sentences violate Fifth Amendment protections | Claim is substantive but untimely and not an after-discovered fact or new constitutional right within PCRA exceptions | Not considered; untimely petition dismissed |
| Ineffective assistance / other collateral relief (time credit, counsel appointment) | Counsel ineffective for advising plea; requests time credit and appointed counsel | These claims are subject to PCRA time limits and, if untimely, cannot be adjudicated absent an applicable exception | Not considered; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sam, 952 A.2d 565 (Pa. 2008) (scope of appellate review of PCRA rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (mixed standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Stark, 658 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. 1995) (review limited to record and legal error)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PCRA filing period and finality)
- Commonwealth v. Vega, 754 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PCRA time limits explained)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA exceptions and finality rules)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa. 1999) (prima facie showing for successive petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 709 A.2d 849 (Pa. 1998) (standard for denying post-conviction relief)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; equitable tolling unavailable)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA timeliness and exceptions reaffirmed)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (claims outside the 1-year window not reachably unless exceptions met)