Com. v. Prater, W.
658 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2016Background
- Wayne Prater was found in criminal contempt for violating a no-contact protection order by sending letters to the victim and her minor children; sentenced November 7, 2011 to 2 months, 28 days to 5 months, 29 days imprisonment.
- No direct appeal was filed; judgment of sentence became final December 7, 2011 (30 days after sentencing).
- Prater filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 24, 2013, claiming the contempt finding was erroneous because the children were not covered by the no-contact order and the victim could not open their mail.
- Counsel entered and later filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter concluding the petition was time-barred and Prater was no longer serving a sentence; Prater later filed an amended pro se petition raising ineffective assistance and the governmental-interference timeliness exception.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices, received Prater’s response, and dismissed the petition on January 30, 2015 as untimely and because Prater was not serving a sentence when he filed the PCRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Prater: prison officials interfered with his communications, invoking governmental-interference exception | Commonwealth: petition filed April 24, 2013 was facially untimely; no proof petition filed within 60 days of when claim could be presented | Court: Petition untimely; Prater failed to satisfy 60-day filing requirement for the exception |
| Eligibility for PCRA relief (custody requirement) | Prater: denial based on completion of sentence conflicts with legislative intent; seeks collateral relief despite sentence having expired | Commonwealth: PCRA requires petitioner to be serving a sentence or to have a sentence that must expire before commencing disputed sentence; Prater’s sentence expired May 6, 2012 | Court: Prater ineligible for PCRA relief because he was not serving a state sentence when petition was filed |
| Necessity of evidentiary hearing | Prater: PCRA court should have held hearing on interference and other claims | Commonwealth: Court followed Rule 907 procedure and dismissed after notice and response; no basis shown to require hearing | Court: No evidentiary hearing required given untimeliness and ineligibility determinations |
| Effect of prior federal ruling | Prater: cites a Third Circuit remand on access-to-counsel/monetary-damages claim to support governmental-interference exception | Commonwealth: federal civil ruling does not satisfy PCRA timeliness or eligibility requirements | Court: Federal decision does not cure PCRA filing defects; exception not established timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Pennsylvania, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA eligibility limited to those still serving state sentences)
- Beasley v. Pennsylvania, 741 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (petitioners invoking PCRA timing exceptions must file within 60 days of when claim could be raised)
- Burkett v. Pennsylvania, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Carter v. Pennsylvania, 21 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2011) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner procedure for counsel withdrawal/no-merit letters)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for no-merit letters under Turner)