Com. v. Mutschler, T.
529 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- In 1999 Tony Lee Mutschler pled guilty to multiple burglaries and related charges arising from three incidents on March 8, 1998; he was sentenced July 27, 1999 to consecutive terms.
- Because he did not file a direct appeal, his judgment of sentence became final on August 26, 1999 (30 days after sentencing).
- Mutschler filed multiple post-conviction actions: a timely first PCRA petition (denied and affirmed on appeal), a second PCRA petition in 2013 (denied and appeal litigated), and the third/current petition filed January 19, 2017 challenging the validity of his 1999 guilty plea.
- The trial court treated the 2017 filing as a PCRA petition and dismissed it as untimely under the PCRA one-year filing rule. Mutschler appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court concluded Mutschler’s 2017 petition was patently untimely (outside the one-year rule) and that he failed to plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions to the time bar; the court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mutschler) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | The 2017 petition challenges validity of the 1999 guilty plea and should be considered despite delay | Petition was filed in 2017, well beyond the one-year deadline from final judgment (2000) | Petition is untimely; dismissed (no timely exception pleaded) |
| Applicability of PCRA time‑bar exceptions | Pleads ineffective assistance of counsel and medication-induced incapacity at plea as basis to hear merits | Did not plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b) within 60 days | Exceptions not met; court lacked jurisdiction to review merits |
| Claim preclusion / previously litigated issues | Claims of involuntary plea (mental incompetence) are new or not previously adjudicated | Similar claims were raised and decided in his first PCRA petition; thus previously litigated and barred | Claims were previously litigated and cannot be relitigated under §9543/§9544(a)(3) |
| Effectiveness of counsel as cure for untimeliness | Ineffective assistance at plea should allow relief despite time-bar | Ineffective assistance does not override jurisdictional timeliness requirements | Ineffective-assistance allegation insufficient to overcome jurisdictional time bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (petitioner must plead and prove timeliness exceptions within 60 days)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to plead statutory exceptions requires dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance does not excuse PCRA jurisdictional requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2017) (appellate brief defects and liberal construction for pro se litigants)