Com. v. Sanders, B.
3351 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 7, 2017Background
- In 1981, then-15-year-old Brian K. Sanders assaulted and raped a psychiatric aide while committed at Norristown State Hospital; he escaped and was apprehended in November 1981.
- Sanders was certified to stand trial as an adult after hearings, convicted following a bench trial, and ultimately resentenced on December 14, 1988 to 16–32 years after a remand concerning the certification and sentencing merger issues.
- Sanders filed prior post-conviction challenges (PCHA/PCRA) in the late 1980s; those petitions were denied and the Superior Court affirmed in 1992.
- On July 18, 2016, Sanders filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming his certified record lacked a May 8, 1985 recertification order and alleging governmental interference in hiding that order.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely under the PCRA; it concluded Sanders failed to plead or prove he met any timeliness exception (governmental interference or newly discovered facts) and that he did not exercise due diligence over the decades.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was time‑barred and the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 2016 PCRA petition and applicability of 60‑day exceptions | Sanders argued petition was timely under PCRA exceptions: (i) governmental interference (Commonwealth hid recertification order) and (ii) newly discovered fact (record lacked the May 8, 1985 recertification order) | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued petition was untimely; Sanders failed to plead or prove either exception and did not exercise due diligence to obtain records earlier | Court held petition untimely; Sanders did not satisfy 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) exceptions or the 60‑day requirement, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (explains due‑diligence requirement and 60‑day rule for PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to hear untimely petition)
- Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997) (application of PCRA grace proviso for judgments final before amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (petitioner must plead and prove facts showing claim was raised within 60 days)