Com. v. Schoff, S.
930 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Suzanne Schoff was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and conspiracy in the murder of her ex-husband and sentenced to life without parole (plus a consecutive term for conspiracy).
- Her direct appeal was affirmed by this Court on November 2, 2006; her judgment of sentence became final on December 4, 2006.
- Schoff filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2007; it was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Schoff filed a second PCRA petition in 2012, which was dismissed as untimely.
- On December 22, 2016 she filed a third PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and withdrew. The court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 24, 2017. Schoff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial/appellate counsel failed to file a petition for allowance of appeal to PA Supreme Court | Schoff contends counsel (Leslie) failed to file a PA Supreme Court allowance petition | Commonwealth implicitly contends record shows no timely allowance petition was filed and Schoff’s judgment became final after expiration of review time | Court did not find a cognizable basis to excuse untimeliness; claim not shown to overcome time bar |
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely / whether an exception to the 1‑year PCRA time bar applies | Schoff argues her claims (ineffective assistance) warrant consideration despite delay | Commonwealth argues petition is facially untimely (filed Dec 22, 2016; judgment final Dec 4, 2006) and Schoff failed to plead any statutory exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) | Court held the petition was untimely and Schoff failed to plead or prove any § 9545(b)(1) exception; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to hear merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (Section 9545 timeliness provisions are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (courts may not create equitable exceptions to PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for PCRA appeals; mixed questions of fact and law)
- Commonwealth v. Schoff, 911 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2006) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for court-appointed counsel to file a no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural framework for counsel seeking to withdraw via no‑merit letter)