Com. v. Richardson, N.
Com. v. Richardson, N. No. 3567 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Nahbeel Richardson was convicted by a jury (March 2, 2010) of sexual offenses against a minor and sentenced on August 30, 2010 to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus 2 years’ probation.
- Richardson filed a timely direct appeal; the Superior Court affirmed on April 5, 2012, and his judgment became final in May 2012 when the time to seek further review expired.
- Richardson filed a timely first PCRA petition (July 23, 2012); appointed PCRA counsel filed a Finley no-merit letter and the petition was dismissed (March 25, 2014).
- Richardson filed a second PCRA petition on March 20, 2015. The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on October 28, 2015.
- Richardson appealed pro se, arguing (among other points) lack of notice of the first dismissal, ineffective assistance (trial, direct appeal, and PCRA counsel), and seeking reinstatement of his first PCRA and/or treatment of the second as an amendment.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the second petition untimely and that Richardson failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception or diligence required by Section 9545.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Richardson) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | The second petition should be considered timely or treated as an amendment to the first; claims merit review | The second petition was filed well after the one-year statutory deadline and no exception was pleaded or proven | Dismissed: petition untimely; no jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Exception for lack of notice of first PCRA dismissal | Richardson says he did not learn of first PCRA dismissal until April 7, 2014 and thus should have 60 days under §9545(b)(2) | Court: Richardson failed to plead this exception below and waited nearly a year after learning of dismissal, showing lack of diligence | Rejected: failure to prove or plead exception and missed 60-day window |
| Ineffective assistance of PCRA and prior counsel | Richardson asserts layered ineffective assistance across trial, direct appeal, and PCRA counsel | Commonwealth contends ineffectiveness claims do not excuse untimeliness and were not properly pleaded as a timeliness exception | Not reached on merits because of untimeliness; claims insufficient to qualify as a §9545(b)(1) exception |
| Request to reinstate first PCRA / treat second as amendment | Richardson requests reinstatement based on procedural/formal defects in his first petition and alleged lack of notice | PCRA court: first petition disposition stands; formal defects cited were not the basis of dismissal and amendment request does not cure timeliness | Denied: reinstatement/amendment not warranted; second petition remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions preclude merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (burden on petitioner to prove timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance generally not a "fact" for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (failure to receive notice can be a §9545(b)(1)(ii) fact if diligently pursued)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness exceptions must be pleaded in the petition)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Finley no-merit procedure for PCRA counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945 (Pa. 2008) (liberal amendment of PCRA pleadings and pro se construction)