Com. v. Parham, P.
441 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- In 1999 Paul Parham was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of an instrument of crime for a 1990 shooting; he received 9–18 years’ imprisonment in 2000.
- Parham filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years: initial pro se petition in 2001 (which reinstated appellate rights), and later petitions in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2016; prior petitions were dismissed and appeals exhausted.
- On May 20, 2016 Parham filed his fifth pro se PCRA petition; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on January 5, 2017.
- Parham argued the petition should be considered under the PCRA’s newly-discovered-facts timeliness exception because he learned his PCRA counsel had disciplinary/personal problems while representing him.
- The PCRA court held the petition untimely; the Superior Court agreed, finding the facts Parham relied on did not apply to counsel who actually represented him in the instant case, so no timeliness exception was established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parham’s fifth PCRA petition is timely under the newly-discovered-facts exception | Parham: he recently discovered that his PCRA counsel had disciplinary/personal problems that prevented earlier presentation of claims | Commonwealth: petition was filed well beyond the one-year deadline; Parham didn’t prove a statutory timeliness exception applies | Court: Petition untimely; exception not met because the attorney Parham cited did not represent him in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness is crucial and jurisdictional in PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 143 A.3d 418 (Pa. Super. 2016) (judgment becomes final at conclusion or expiration of direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements of newly-discovered-facts timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 156 A.3d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2017) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove a statutory timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (clarification on labeling prior petitions for timeliness analysis)