Com. v. Shamdis-Deen, K.
1353 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Karim Ali Shamdis-Deen was convicted of robbery in 2007 and sentenced to a mandatory 10–20 year term, consecutive to another sentence.
- Direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court (Oct. 10, 2008); Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance (Feb. 26, 2009); judgment became final May 27, 2009.
- Appellant filed multiple pro se PCRA petitions and related filings between 2009 and 2017; his first timely PCRA (May 4, 2009) was denied after counsel sought to withdraw under Turner/Finley.
- The petition at issue (filed Jan. 20, 2017 under the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" title) was treated by the PCRA court as a fifth PCRA petition seeking reconsideration of alleged ineffectiveness for not preserving a weight-of-the-evidence claim.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss; after Appellant’s reply, it dismissed the petition as untimely on April 6, 2017. Appellant appealed; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should be treated as a PCRA petition despite being titled a "Writ of Habeas Corpus" | The filing sought reconsideration of prior PCRA relief and should not be constrained by PCRA timing | The petition is cognizable under the PCRA and therefore subject to PCRA procedures and timing | Court: Petition is governed by the PCRA because §9542 makes PCRA the sole collateral remedy |
| Whether the Jan. 20, 2017 petition was timely | Argued the court should reconsider denial of the first PCRA; implied timing not applicable | Judgment became final May 27, 2009; petition filed in 2017 is facially untimely | Court: Petition is untimely under §9545(b)(1); judgment final May 27, 2009; one-year filing period expired May 27, 2010 |
| Whether any statutory timeliness exception applies | Relied on ineffectiveness claims as basis for reconsideration | No timeliness exception was properly pleaded or proven; ineffective-assistance claims do not constitute a timeliness exception | Court: No exception alleged or proven; ineffectiveness is not a statutory exception (per Gamboa-Taylor) |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in procedure or legal conclusion in dismissing the petition | Requested reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing on counsel ineffectiveness for not filing post-sentence motion | Dismissal for untimeliness appropriate; procedural requirements for invoking exceptions not met | Court: Affirmed dismissal; PCRA court’s findings supported by record and without legal error (standard of review upheld) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA encompasses habeas corpus claims)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance claims do not satisfy PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 911 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing documents)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (timeliness requirement for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw in PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for court-appointed counsel withdrawal)