Com. v. Shipley, J.
160 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- John Roscoe Shipley was convicted by a jury on July 7, 2011 of burglary, criminal trespass, DUI, two counts of criminal mischief, and loitering/prowling; sentenced to an aggregate 7¾ to 15½ years plus 6 months probation.
- Direct appeals were exhausted; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur and the judgment became final on June 4, 2013 (expiration of time to file certiorari).
- Shipley filed two prior PCRA petitions without success. On August 3, 2016 he filed a third PCRA petition challenging his DUI conviction under Birchfield v. North Dakota.
- The PCRA court held a hearing, concluded the petition was untimely, and dismissed it on October 19, 2016; Shipley appealed.
- Shipley did not invoke any of the statutory timeliness exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) nor show that Birchfield should be applied retroactively to his final conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shipley’s PCRA petition asserting a Birchfield-based challenge to his DUI conviction is timely | Shipley argued Birchfield invalidates warrantless blood-test sanctions and should allow relief from his DUI conviction; he suggested retroactive application under Teague | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the petition was filed after the one-year PCRA deadline and Shipley did not plead a statutory timeliness exception or show Birchfield applies retroactively | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction. Dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (holding criminal sanctions for refusing warrantless blood tests are unconstitutional absent warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (standard for retroactive application of new constitutional rules in habeas cases)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (courts may not reach merits of untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (legality-of-sentence claims must be raised in timely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (burden to invoke PCRA timeliness exceptions)