Com. v. Silvis, E.
658 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Edward Clyde Silvis was convicted of first-degree murder (1969 trial transferred from Forest to Armstrong County) and sentenced to life without parole; Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed in 1971.
- Silvis filed multiple post-conviction petitions over decades; this appeal follows at least four prior unsuccessful collateral challenges.
- In Nov. 2015 Silvis filed a pro se habeas-style petition in Forest County; the court transferred it to Armstrong County, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; this Court later characterized that filing as an untimely PCRA petition and affirmed dismissal (Mar. 2016).
- On Jan. 30, 2017 Silvis filed a pro se "Writ of Error Coram Nobis" in Forest County challenging the clerk’s transfer as fraudulent/abusive and seeking reconsideration of the transfer decision.
- The trial court denied the coram nobis petition (construed as a motion for reconsideration); this appeal challenges that denial.
- The Superior Court held the filing was an untimely PCRA petition (PCRA subsumes coram nobis and habeas corpus), waived certain claims for failure to raise them earlier, and affirmed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Silvis's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis was proper relief or the filing should be treated as a PCRA petition | The Forest County transfer was improper/fraudulent; coram nobis can address the transfer | The PCRA subsumes coram nobis; the filing is really an untimely PCRA petition | Treated as untimely PCRA petition; coram nobis inappropriate |
| Whether failure to object to the transfer earlier forfeits the claim | Transfer procedural error should be heard now despite prior inaction | Claim waived because not raised during prior collateral proceedings | Waived for failure to raise in earlier proceedings |
| Whether the petition satisfied PCRA timeliness exceptions | The petition asserts procedural defects in transfer that warrant review | Petition filed decades after sentence final; no applicable exceptions pleaded | Petition is facially untimely; no §9545(b) exception met |
| Whether lack of Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 pre-dismissal notice requires reversal | Failure to issue Rule 907 notice prejudiced petitioner | Even without notice, untimeliness is jurisdictional; no prejudice shown | No reversible error; untimely petition would fail regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Silvis, 284 A.2d 740 (Pa. 1971) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (coram nobis generally challenges judgments based on facts not before the court)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA subsumes habeas and coram nobis)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (issues waived if not raised on appeal or in prior post-conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and must be strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (issues cognizable under PCRA must be raised in timely PCRA petition)