Com. v. Salley, A.
Com. v. Salley, A. No. 2750 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- Alfonzo Salley was convicted in three separate 1986–1989 jury trials for robbery and related offenses; judgments of sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, with the last allocatur denied September 17, 1991.
- Salley filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (1997, 2004, 2007, 2010) that were dismissed; his 1997 petition was litigated and the dismissal affirmed in 2000.
- On April 15, 2014 Salley filed a writ of mandamus and a motion to reinstate appellate rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court treated these filings as a PCRA petition and issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss as untimely.
- Salley claimed “dual abandonment” of counsel (counsel failed to perfect appeals to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on direct appeal and on his first PCRA), invoking the PCRA’s new-facts/due-diligence exception.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2014 petition as untimely; Salley appealed and also sought remand for an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s alleged failure to communicate about appellate rights.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding Salley’s 2014 petition was facially untimely and he failed to prove a timeliness exception (specifically, he did not show when or how he discovered counsel’s alleged failures or that he exercised due diligence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Salley: petition timely under new-facts exception because he only later discovered counsel’s dual abandonment | Commonwealth: petition filed more than one year after judgment became final and Salley failed to plead/prove a statutory exception or due diligence | Petition untimely; Salley failed to prove new-facts exception or due diligence, so PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Dual abandonment by counsel (failure to appeal to Supreme Court) | Salley: appellate/PCRA counsel abandoned him by not filing for allocatur or pursuing appeals; he was unaware until later | Commonwealth: bare assertion insufficient; Salley did not allege when he learned of non‑appeals or show reasonable efforts to discover that fact | Court found allegations conclusory and unsupported; did not meet Cox/Edmiston due-diligence standard |
| Request for evidentiary hearing/remand | Salley: an evidentiary hearing is needed to prove counsel’s failure to communicate and abandonment | Commonwealth: no hearing required if petition is untimely and no exception established | Remand denied as futile because timeliness defect disposes of claims |
| Treatment of mandamus/nunc pro tunc motion | Salley: sought relief via writ and motion rather than PCRA form | Commonwealth/PCRA court: such claims must be brought under the PCRA | Court properly treated filings as PCRA petition and applied PCRA timeliness rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (new-facts/due-diligence exception invoked where petitioner did not learn of appellate counsel’s failure to file brief until receiving Superior Court notice)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (explains two-prong test for new-facts exception and due-diligence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance claims do not bypass PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997) (application of PCRA grace-period for judgments final before 1995 amendments)