Com. v. Patterson, J.
517 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- In Sept. 2012 Patterson pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) to attempted murder and possession of an instrument of crime; aggregate sentence 12–24 years; no direct appeal.
- Patterson timely filed a pro se PCRA petition; PCRA counsel later filed an amended petition alleging trial counsel induced the guilty plea and failed to investigate Patterson’s mental-health history.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing the petition on March 15, 2019 (the order also mistakenly said counsel could withdraw); Patterson did not appeal that order.
- The PCRA court later vacated the March 15 order and entered a dismissal dated June 27, 2019; this Court earlier quashed an appeal as untimely because the March 15 order was treated as the operative dismissal.
- On Feb. 17, 2021 Patterson filed a petition to reinstate his PCRA appellate rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court granted reinstatement and Patterson filed the present appeal.
- The Superior Court concluded the March 15, 2019 order was not properly entered/served as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 114/908, lacked appellate-rights information, and therefore quashed the appeal as premature (PCRA timeliness concerns noted but the quash was based on non-finality of the order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patterson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson’s guilty plea was unlawfully induced / involuntary due to trial counsel’s ineffectiveness | Counsel induced plea and failed to investigate mental-health history, rendering plea involuntary | PCRA court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim; Commonwealth defends dismissal | Court did not reach merits; appeal quashed as premature for procedural/docketing reasons |
| Whether the Feb. 17, 2021 petition to reinstate appellate rights was timely and authorized reinstatement nunc pro tunc | Patterson sought reinstatement of his right to appeal the March 15, 2019 dismissal | Commonwealth argued the reinstatement petition was facially untimely and failed to plead a PCRA timeliness exception, so PCRA lacked jurisdiction | Court observed the petition appears untimely and would lack jurisdiction, but the appeal was quashed on non-finality grounds rather than resolved on timeliness |
| Whether the March 15, 2019 PCRA dismissal order was properly entered/served so that a timely appeal could be taken | Patterson treated the March 15 order as the final appealable dismissal | Commonwealth/PCRA court noted the March 15 entry lacked required service notation and appellate-rights language and thus was not properly docketed/served | Superior Court held the March 15 order was not properly entered/served; appeal quashed as premature pending proper docketing/service and a new 30-day appeal period |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 245 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Super. 2020) (prior panel’s disposition of related PCRA appeal and procedural history)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petition jurisdictional; review de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (petition to reinstate appellate rights considered a PCRA petition for timeliness purposes)
- In re Estate of Elkins, 32 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (law-of-the-case doctrine limits reconsideration by later panels)
- Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc) (exception to law-of-the-case where prior ruling is clearly erroneous and would create manifest injustice)