Com. v. Pagliaccetti, A.
3410 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- On Dec. 24, 2002, Anthony Pagliaccetti shot and killed Jason McFarland; he was convicted by jury of third-degree murder and related firearm offenses and sentenced June 10, 2004 to 15–30 years.
- Direct appeal and discretionary review concluded in 2005; judgment of sentence became final on Dec. 21, 2005.
- Pagliaccetti filed a first counseled PCRA in 2006; after litigation the PCRA was denied and appellate review concluded in 2010.
- He filed a second PCRA petition on Oct. 31, 2014 (with amendments in 2016) raising: ineffective assistance and conflict of interest by prior PCRA counsel, actual innocence/miscarriage of justice, and seeking appointment of counsel for the second petition.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss and ultimately dismissed the second petition as untimely under the PCRA time-bar; Pagliaccetti appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pagliaccetti) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA court/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Timeliness under PCRA §9545 | Second PCRA filed 2014; claims should be heard despite lapse because of counsel conflict and miscarriage of justice | Petition is facially untimely (final judgment 2005; petition filed >1 year later); petitioner must plead/prove statutory exception | Petition is untimely; Pagliaccetti failed to plead/prove any exception; dismissal affirmed |
| 2) Invocation of "new constitutional right" (Martinez) to excuse time-bar | Martinez allows ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective; thus time-bar should be excused | Martinez governs federal habeas, Pennsylvania courts apply PCRA time-bar strictly; Martinez does not create a state-law exception | Martinez does not supply an exception under the PCRA; petitioner’s Martinez-based claim untimely and untethered to §9545 exceptions |
| 3) Conflict/ineffectiveness of prior PCRA counsel | First PCRA was fatally defective due to an active conflict of interest by PCRA counsel; that should permit review now | Ineffectiveness of prior PCRA counsel does not overcome PCRA timeliness requirements; petitioner must still satisfy §9545 exceptions | Allegations of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness do not excuse the time-bar; claim insufficiently pleaded and meritless for timeliness purposes |
| 4) Right to appointed counsel on second/subsequent PCRA | Requests appointment of counsel for this second PCRA and/or supplemental counsel due to conflict | No entitlement to appointed counsel on second or subsequent PCRA petitions; appointment applies to first PCRA only | No right to appointed counsel for second/subsequent PCRA; request denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Callahan v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review and timeliness questions)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (jurisdictional dismissal of untimely PCRA petitions)
- Perrin v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (burden to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)
- Wharton v. Commonwealth, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa.) (ineffective assistance does not overcome PCRA timeliness)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa.) (federal habeas resolution does not negate need for timely PCRA)
- Saunders v. Commonwealth, 60 A.3d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (Martinez not applicable to create PCRA time-bar exception)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (federal habeas rule on initial-review collateral counsel; discussed but held inapplicable to PCRA relief)