Com. v. Scott, K.
Com. v. Scott, K. No. 470 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 24, 2017Background
- Kevin Francis Scott pled guilty on September 3, 2008 to multiple counts (indecent exposure, corruption of minors, open lewdness) and was sentenced the same day to an aggregate 10–20 years, to run consecutively to a New York sentence.
- Scott did not file a direct appeal; his Pennsylvania judgment of sentence became final October 3, 2008.
- Scott began serving his New York sentence November 17, 2008 and began the Pennsylvania sentence after return to Pennsylvania on November 23, 2010.
- Scott filed a PCRA petition on October 27, 2011; counsel filed a Turner/Finley letter and the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on February 16, 2016.
- Scott appealed, arguing (among other things) that the petition was timely because his Pennsylvania sentence did not begin until his return from New York and that governmental interference and other factors tolled the PCRA deadline; the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition / jurisdiction | Petition timely because sentence did not begin until Scott returned to PA; thus PCRA clock should start at return | Judgment of sentence final on expiration of direct-appeal period (Oct 3, 2008); petition filed in 2011 was untimely | Court held petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Governmental interference tolling exception | Lack of access to PA legal materials in NY, extended NY custody, fear of assault in PA prisons prevented filing | Petitioner failed to plead/prove interference or why due diligence could not have uncovered issues earlier; delays not excused | Exception not satisfied; claims waived or meritless; no equitable tolling under PCRA |
| Consecutive sentence / sentence commencement | Sentence did not begin until returned to PA; imposition of consecutive sentence interfered with ability to file | Trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences; sentencing claim must be raised timely | Court rejected argument; consecutive sentence not governmental interference and claim untimely |
| Plea validity / ineffective assistance / breach of plea agreement | Plea was unlawfully induced; actual innocence; counsel ineffective for not objecting to alleged plea/sentencing breach | Claims are merits-based but cannot be reached because petition is time-barred and no timeliness exception pleaded | Court deemed claims not considered due to lack of jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walters, 814 A.2d 253 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discusses finality and appeal timing concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal and appellate counsel duties)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw from PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA does not recognize equitable tolling)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (burden to plead and prove governmental interference exception)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting governmental-interference excuse where petitioner lacked reasonable explanation for delay)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (failure to provide Rule 907 notice not automatically reversible when petition plainly untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (sixty-day filing requirement for timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead/prove timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretion to impose consecutive sentences and preservation rules)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2003) (challenges to discretionary sentencing must be timely)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (briefing rules and waiver for undeveloped arguments)