Com. v. Pavlichko, J.
762 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- James S. Pavlichko pleaded guilty in 1997 to homicide-related charges; after a degree-of-guilt hearing he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life plus 15–40 years consecutively.
- Direct appeal was resolved against Pavlichko and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; judgment of sentence became final on March 23, 1999.
- Pavlichko filed multiple pro se PCRA petitions: the first in 1999 (denied), second in 2005 (denied), third in 2006 (denied). Appeals from those denials were affirmed.
- On March 10, 2017 Pavlichko filed another pro se “Motion to Modify and Correct Illegal Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc,” which the PCRA court treated as a fourth PCRA petition and served Rule 907 notice.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on April 17, 2017 (an amended motion was also denied), and Pavlichko appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was a PCRA petition, was filed well beyond the one-year statutory filing period, no statutory timeliness exception was alleged, and therefore the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pavlichko's motion challenging sentence legality could proceed despite being filed long after judgment became final | Pavlichko sought relief from an illegal sentence and characterized his filing as a nunc pro tunc correction/habeas-type motion | Commonwealth/PCRA court: the filing is a PCRA petition subject to the one-year time bar; no exception pleaded | The Superior Court held the filing was a PCRA petition and was untimely; because no exception applied, court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the PCRA court properly treated the filing as a PCRA petition rather than another form of collateral relief | Pavlichko styled the filing as a motion to modify/correct illegal sentence nunc pro tunc | Commonwealth relied on precedent that collateral challenges cognizable under the PCRA must be treated as PCRA petitions | Court applied Peterkin and treated the pleading as a PCRA petition |
| Whether any statutory exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirement were asserted | Pavlichko did not invoke or plead any of the statutory exceptions to timeliness | Commonwealth argued absence of any exception meant petition is time-barred | Court held no exception was raised, so petition was jurisdictionally time-barred |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the merits | Pavlichko implicitly argued the claim concerns legality of sentence which is cognizable on collateral review | Commonwealth argued jurisdiction is lacking because petition is untimely and no exception was shown | Court held PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to review the untimely petition and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterkin v. Commonwealth, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (collateral petitions raising PCRA-cognizable claims must be treated as PCRA petitions)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness is jurisdictional in PCRA proceedings)
- Fowler v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claims challenging legality of sentence are cognizable under the PCRA and must satisfy its timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Pavlichko, 724 A.2d 959 (Pa. Super. 1998) (affirming direct appeal outcome)