Com. v. Siegel, S.
273 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- In 2008 Siegel shot a gas station attendant during an attempted robbery; victim survived. Siegel was convicted in 2011 of multiple crimes and sentenced to 23–50 years plus 15 years probation.
- This Court affirmed Siegel’s direct appeal in March 2013; his judgment became final in April 2013.
- Siegel filed a first PCRA petition in December 2013; it was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed.
- In October 2015 Siegel filed a second, pro se PCRA petition; the PCRA court provided Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition.
- Siegel appealed pro se, arguing (1) § 9545(b)(1) is unconstitutional (timeliness), (2) PCRA counsel ineffective for not responding to a request for a Grazier hearing, and (3) PCRA counsel ineffective for not raising direct‑appeal counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness for failing to raise an after‑discovered‑evidence claim.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely and Siegel did not invoke or prove any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) / whether § 9545(b)(1) is unconstitutional | Siegel contends the timeliness bar is unconstitutional and thus his petition should be considered | The Commonwealth/PCRA court argues the petition is facially untimely (judgment final April 2013; petition due April 2014) and the statute is constitutional under precedent | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed. Court relied on precedent upholding PCRA time limits as constitutional |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to respond to a timely request for a Grazier hearing | Siegel says counsel failed to secure a Grazier hearing (to proceed pro se with counsel withdrawn), constituting ineffective assistance | Commonwealth/PCRA court notes ineffectiveness claims do not excuse untimeliness and Siegel did not plead a timeliness exception | Claim does not overcome jurisdictional timeliness defect; PCRA court properly dismissed |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for not raising direct‑appeal counsel’s ineffectiveness (failure to raise after‑discovered evidence) | Siegel argues PCRA counsel should have raised that direct‑appeal counsel was ineffective for not raising after‑discovered evidence | Commonwealth/PCRA court points out ineffective assistance claims cannot be used to bypass timeliness and that such claims must be raised properly and timely | Claim rejected as untimely; ineffective‑assistance allegations do not create a statutory exception to PCRA timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (judgment final when time to seek Supreme Court review expires)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance claims do not overcome PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (limitations on raising PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness in serial petitions or for first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA time limits and exceptions are constitutional)