Com. v. Saxton, K.
Com. v. Saxton, K. No. 925 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- In 1981 Saxton was convicted (non-jury) of first-degree murder and PIC; sentenced to life plus concurrent term.
- New counsel appealed claiming trial counsel ineffective; Superior Court found counsel ineffective but harmless and affirmed; Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately affirmed in 1987.
- Saxton filed multiple collateral challenges over the years; on April 14, 2014 he filed a pro se petition styled as a writ of habeas corpus.
- The trial court treated the filing as a PCRA petition, issued a Rule 907 notice, and dismissed it as untimely on February 16, 2016.
- Saxton appealed, arguing the petition raised conflict-free counsel/actual innocence claims and therefore should not be time-barred. The Superior Court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Saxton's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly treated the habeas filing as a PCRA petition | The filing was a writ of habeas corpus and should not be constrained by PCRA timing | The claim is cognizable under the PCRA, so the PCRA statute governs | Court properly treated the petition as a PCRA petition |
| Whether Saxton showed an exception to the PCRA one-year time bar | Petition asserted conflict-free counsel and asserted actual innocence; thus timeliness should be excused | Petition was filed decades after finality and did not plead a statutory exception or show diligence | Petition was facially untimely; no statutory exception proven; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether ineffective-assistance or actual-innocence labels avoid the PCRA time bar | Labels such as ineffective assistance or actual innocence place claims outside PCRA timing | PCRA is the sole vehicle for collateral relief; such claims must be raised in a timely PCRA petition | Ineffective-assistance and actual-innocence claims do not bypass PCRA timeliness requirements |
| Whether the claimed conflict (attorneys as agents of Commonwealth) sufficed to raise jurisdictional exception | Conflict claim asserted as a new basis to revive late petition | Conflict theory does not meet statutory exceptions and was repackaged prior claim | Repackaging prior claims insufficient; time-bar applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Saxton, 501 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 1985) (Superior Court decision on post-trial record supplementation and ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Saxton, 532 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirming judgment of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA subsumes habeas corpus; titling cannot avoid PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (actual innocence claims are cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timeliness is jurisdictional for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance claims do not circumvent PCRA timeliness requirements)