Com. v. Ortiz, I.
Com. v. Ortiz, I. No. 3397 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- In 2004 a jury convicted Ismael Acevedo Ortiz of second-degree murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy for the killing of Jasper Watts; he was sentenced to life for murder and concurrent terms for the other counts.
- Superior Court affirmed the conviction in 2006 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; judgment of sentence became final in October 2006.
- Ortiz filed a PCRA petition in 2007; it was denied in 2008 and that denial was affirmed in 2009.
- On June 21, 2016 Ortiz filed a writ of habeas corpus; the trial court treated it as a PCRA petition, issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and dismissed it as untimely on September 23, 2016.
- Ortiz appealed pro se, arguing principally that no official signed-and-sealed sentencing order was issued (so no final judgment existed) and that his habeas petition should not be treated as a PCRA petition.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely under the PCRA time bar, the sentencing documentation (sheets/docket/transcript) establish finality, and the PCRA subsumes habeas relief for these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness / jurisdiction under PCRA | Ortiz: his habeas petition should not be subject to PCRA time bar because no final sentencing order was issued. | Commonwealth: Ortiz’s judgment was final in 2006; a 2016 petition is untimely and court lacks jurisdiction absent a statutory exception. | Court: Petition untimely; judgment final in 2006; no jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA. |
| 2. Existence of official sentencing order / finality | Ortiz: absence of an official signed-and-sealed sentencing order means no final judgment. | Commonwealth: signed sentencing sheets, docket entries, and transcript evidence establish imposition and finality of sentence. | Court: Sentencing sheets/docket/transcript confirm final judgment; PCRA time limits apply. |
| 3. Availability of habeas corpus outside PCRA | Ortiz: habeas corpus is a viable alternative because PCRA time bar shouldn’t apply. | Commonwealth: The PCRA subsumes habeas corpus for collateral challenges to convictions and sentences. | Court: PCRA is the exclusive statutory vehicle for collateral relief here; habeas is subsumed. |
| 4. Characterization of filings | Ortiz: Trial court erred by treating his writ of habeas corpus as a PCRA petition. | Commonwealth: Substance controls; relief sought is collateral attack on sentence, so treated as PCRA. | Court: Correct to treat petition as PCRA; dismissal for untimeliness was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; courts lack jurisdiction over untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA filing period is not subject to equitable tolling; only statutory exceptions apply)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582 (Pa. 1999) (standard for second or subsequent PCRA petitions; prima facie showing to demonstrate miscarriage of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (clarifies PCRA timeliness and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa.Super. 2010) (PCRA finality and timing rules; defining when judgment is final)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (trial court lacks power to address substantive merits when petition untimely and not covered by exceptions)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa.Super. 2014) (docket entries and sentencing transcript can confirm sentence even without a separate sentencing order)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa.Super. 2013) (PCRA subsumes habeas corpus unless PCRA fails to provide a remedy)