Com. v. Perez, J.
Com. v. Perez, J. No. 1627 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- In 1992 Perez was convicted of delivery and possession with intent to deliver cocaine; sentenced in 1993 to aggregate 24–80 years. Direct appeal affirmed in 1994; no further review pursued.
- Perez filed multiple post-conviction petitions over the years; the instant filing was his sixth PCRA petition (filed July 30, 2015, amended March 2016).
- Perez argued his sentence was unlawful because sentencing guideline forms lacked stated reasons and alternatively challenged the criminal complaint/arrest-warrant affidavits for an unidentifiable jurat signature.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year filing rule; Perez appealed.
- The Superior Court evaluated timeliness and exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), and also considered whether habeas corpus relief was available for the alleged jurisdictional defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perez) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely or fits a timeliness exception | Perez claimed newly discovered facts: he only received the Guideline Sentence Form July 1, 2015, showing the sentencing court failed to state reasons on the record | The petition was facially untimely (judgment final June 1, 1994). Perez did not show the facts were previously unknowable or that he exercised due diligence | Petition untimely; Perez failed to establish the newly-discovered-facts exception under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) |
| Whether alleged defects in complaint/warrant (unidentifiable jurat signature) render conviction void and allow habeas relief outside PCRA timeliness | Perez asserted the defect deprived the court of jurisdiction ab initio, entitling him to habeas corpus relief not subject to PCRA time limits | Habeas corpus is extraordinary and unavailable where relief could be had via PCRA or on direct appeal; defects not raised at preliminary hearing/trial were waived | Habeas relief not available; issue waived and subsumed by PCRA remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Breakiron v. Commonwealth, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (standard of review and limits on merits inquiry when assessing timeliness exceptions)
- Cox v. Commonwealth, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; exceptions must be established)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (requirements for newly-discovered-facts exception under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Abu-Jamal v. Horn, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (the timeliness exception focuses on facts’ discovery and due diligence, not merits)
- DiVentura v. Commonwealth, 734 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 1999) (habeas corpus is extraordinary; unavailable where PCRA or direct appeal could provide relief)
- Manni v. Commonwealth, 302 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 1973) (failure to object to defect in complaint waives the issue)