Com. v. Primus, M.
2876 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Appellant Michael R. Primus pled guilty on April 22, 2014 to third‑degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and was sentenced the same day to 22½ to 45 years plus $5,000 restitution.
- He did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on May 22, 2014 (30 days after sentencing).
- Appellant filed a PCRA petition on June 29, 2015 (over one year after the judgment of sentence became final).
- Appointed PCRA counsel submitted a Finley letter asserting no meritorious issues; the court treated the letter per Finley/Turner procedures and listed the matter for argument.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, found the petition untimely, concluded Appellant failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception, and dismissed the PCRA petition on August 19, 2016.
- Appellant appealed pro se, arguing ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel, that the Finley letter was deficient, and that the PCRA court’s independent review was deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Primus's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petition was timely / court had jurisdiction | Primus argued his claims (including ineffective assistance) warranted consideration despite filing date | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely (filed June 29, 2015) and no statutory exception applies | Petition untimely; no exception pleaded or proven; court lacked jurisdiction to address merits |
| Whether PCRA counsel rendered ineffective assistance | Primus claimed counsel was ineffective and this should excuse timeliness or require relief | Commonwealth maintained ineffective assistance does not salvage an otherwise untimely PCRA petition | Ineffective assistance claim does not overcome jurisdictional time bar; court properly declined to reach merits |
| Whether Finley letter was deficient | Primus contended the Finley letter and counsel’s conduct were deficient | Commonwealth defended counsel’s Finley procedure and noted clerical conflations did not cure untimeliness | Finley letter deficiencies (clerical errors) were not consequential to the jurisdictional timeliness determination |
| Whether PCRA court’s independent review was deficient | Primus asserted the court failed in its independent review under Finley/Turner | Commonwealth argued the court followed required procedures and properly dismissed as untimely | Court’s review and dismissal were appropriate because the petition was untimely and exceptions were not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (standards for counsel withdrawal when no nonfrivolous issues exist in postconviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for appointed counsel’s withdrawal and court’s independent review)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (need to plead facts showing compliance with 60‑day requirement for timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (ineffective assistance of counsel does not excuse an untimely PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (untimely PCRA petition deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)