Com. v. Napper, K.
Com. v. Napper, K. No. 724 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Napper pleaded guilty on June 30, 2014 in multiple cases and was sentenced to an aggregate 5–10 years' imprisonment; he did not file a direct appeal, so judgment was final July 30, 2014.
- At sentencing the court and parties discussed RRRI (recidivism risk reduction incentive) eligibility; the Commonwealth argued Napper was ineligible because he was awaiting prosecution in a Westmoreland County case for drug delivery resulting in death.
- The trial court concluded Napper was ineligible for RRRI but stated it would reconsider if the Westmoreland case were later resolved to restore eligibility.
- Napper was acquitted in Westmoreland County on September 17, 2015, and on November 13, 2015 filed a motion to correct sentence asking for RRRI minimums; the trial court denied relief and Napper sought to treat the motion as a PCRA petition.
- The PCRA court converted the motion to a PCRA petition but dismissed it as untimely on April 19, 2016; Napper appealed.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding Napper’s acquittal was a new fact under the PCRA time‑bar exception and that his PCRA filing (57 days after acquittal) was timely; matter remanded for merits consideration of RRRI eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — applicability of PCRA "new fact" exception | Napper: acquittal in Westmoreland is a new fact he only learned Sept 17, 2015; he filed within 60 days | Commonwealth/PCRA court: acquittal is not a "fact" but subsequent decisional law (citing Watts) and thus does not trigger the exception | Superior Court: acquittal is an actual event (a new fact) under §9545(b)(1)(ii); Napper filed within 60 days, so petition is timely |
| Merits — entitlement to RRRI/illegal sentence claim | Napper: he became RRRI‑eligible upon acquittal and trial court indicated it would reconsider; seeks resentencing to RRRI minimum | Commonwealth/PCRA court: PCRA court initially concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify sentence because petition was untimely (and declined to reach merits) | Superior Court: because timeliness exception applies, PCRA court erred in dismissal; remanded for consideration of merits and RRRI eligibility (did not decide RRRI entitlement on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (distinguishes "law" from "fact" for PCRA new‑fact exception and holds subsequent decisional law is not a new fact)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explains §9545(b)(1)(ii) requires unknown facts that could not have been ascertained with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 863 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (clarifies the ‘‘facts’’ underpinning a PCRA claim are the events on which relief is based)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez‑Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of appellate review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)