Com. v. Parker, C.
Com. v. Parker, C. No. 2232 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- Charles Parker was convicted after a bench trial (Dec. 7, 2001) of aggravated assault and possession of an instrument of crime and was sentenced on Aug. 12, 2002 to consecutive terms totaling 9–24 years.
- This Court previously affirmed Parker’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on Nov. 30, 2011.
- Parker filed a timely first PCRA petition on June 14, 2012; amended petitions followed and the PCRA court dismissed that petition on Apr. 17, 2015 (no appeal taken).
- Parker filed a second PCRA petition on Dec. 3, 2015; the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on June 22, 2016.
- Parker appealed pro se, arguing a due-process/right-to-review theory and alleging impropriety and impartiality by the PCRA court, but did not plead any statutory timeliness exception.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the second PCRA petition untimely and that Parker failed to plead or prove any exception to the PCRA time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parker) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition was timely | Parker contends he has a constitutionally protected right to review and relies on his earlier timely PCRA filings to avoid the timeliness requirement | The PCRA court/Commonwealth argues the petition was filed well after the one-year statutory deadline and no exception was pleaded or proved | Dismissal affirmed: petition untimely; no jurisdiction absent a pleaded exception |
| Whether a due-process or court-impropriety claim excuses the time bar | Parker asserts misconduct/impropriety by the PCRA court and due-process violation warrant relief | Commonwealth says generalized allegations do not satisfy statutory exceptions or the 60-day filing requirement for exceptions | Rejected: generalized due-process/impropriety claims do not meet timeliness exceptions |
| Whether any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar applies | Parker did not plead or prove any enumerated exception (government interference, after-discovered facts, or newly recognized constitutional right) | Court requires pleading and proof of one of the three exceptions within 60 days of when claim could be presented | No exception established; statutory exceptions not met |
| Whether the PCRA court’s alleged impartiality requires recusal/remand | Parker requests recusal and remand based on alleged impropriety | Commonwealth asserts no timeliness-compliant claim presented; recusal not supported by the record presented | Denied: merits not reached because of jurisdictional timeliness defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (enumerates one-year filing rule and 60-day requirement for exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (describes the three statutory exceptions to the PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 23 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2010) (affirming underlying conviction on direct appeal)