Com. v. Oren, A.
Com. v. Oren, A. No. 3137 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Arie Oren was convicted by a jury on September 13, 2012 of four counts of aggravated indecent assault and five counts of indecent assault; he was sentenced on February 14, 2013 to an aggregate 4½ to 9 years.
- Oren did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- First PCRA counsel filed a PCRA petition on July 8, 2013; the PCRA court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing on July 1, 2014, and the Superior Court affirmed. Oren did not seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Oren filed a pro se second PCRA petition on July 25, 2016 raising trial error and ineffective-assistance claims and asserting that prior counsel’s ineffectiveness and obstruction by government officials excused untimeliness.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on September 13, 2016; Oren appealed. The Superior Court affirmed, holding he failed to plead a statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Oren's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition was timely or saved by an exception | Oren argued prior counsels’ ineffectiveness and alleged obstruction by government officials excused the untimely filing and that he lacked prior knowledge of constitutional violations | The Commonwealth argued the petition was untimely and Oren failed to plead any §9545(b)(1) exception; counsel are not government actors under the interference exception | Petition untimely; Oren failed to establish any statutory timeliness exception under §9545(b)(1) |
| Whether ineffective assistance of prior PCRA counsel can toll the PCRA time-bar via the governmental-interference exception | Oren contended prior PCRA counsel narrowed claims and dissuaded him from seeking further review | Commonwealth relied on precedent that ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel does not equate to government interference and cannot circumvent timeliness | Court held PCRA counsel’s alleged narrowing/strategic choices do not satisfy the governmental-interference exception |
| Whether unknown facts exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) applied | Oren claimed he had no prior knowledge of the constitutional violations underpinning his claims | Commonwealth argued Oren did not demonstrate facts were unknown or that due diligence could not have uncovered them | Court found Oren failed to plead facts showing they were previously unknown or that he exercised due diligence |
| Whether prior counsel abandoned Oren such that appellate relief was excused | Oren asserted he was dissuaded from filing a petition for allowance of appeal after the first PCRA denial | Commonwealth pointed to record showing prior PCRA counsel advised against filing based on low probability and did not abandon him | Court concluded there was no abandonment; Oren’s agreement with counsel defeated an abandonment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (courts lack jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is a threshold jurisdictional issue reviewable sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (one-year filing rule and 60-day requirement for exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel does not trigger timeliness exceptions and PCRA counsel are not government officials)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (rejects attempts to evade the PCRA one-year limit via serial petitions alleging PCRA counsel ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)