Com. v. Singh, G.
Com. v. Singh, G. No. 2975 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 8, 2017Background
- Gurinder Singh pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for his wife's death and was sentenced to 15–30 years imprisonment plus 5 years probation on January 23, 2013.
- Singh did not file a timely direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on February 22, 2013.
- Singh filed a first PCRA petition alleging counsel failed to file a timely appeal; it was dismissed as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed.
- On April 28, 2016 Singh filed a second PCRA petition raising: (1) plea involuntariness, (2) failure to provide an interpreter, (3) trial counsel’s failure to timely move for reconsideration of sentence, and (4) plea counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because Singh did not plead or prove any statutory exception to the one-year time bar; one claim (failure to file notice of appeal) was previously litigated.
- Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit brief and application to withdraw; the Superior Court found counsel substantially complied with withdrawal requirements and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | PCRA claims are meritorious and should be considered despite filing in 2016 | Petition is untimely under § 9545(b) and Singh did not plead a statutory exception | Dismissed: petition untimely; Singh failed to plead/prove exceptions so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Previously litigated claim (failure to file timely appeal) | Claim remains meritorious and warrants relief | Claim was raised in earlier PCRA and thus is previously litigated/barred | Held previously litigated; cannot be relitigated under § 9543(a)(3) |
| Ineffective assistance — counsel failed to file timely notice of appeal | Counsel promised and failed to file a timely appeal, prejudicing Singh | Claim was raised in an earlier, untimely PCRA and thus is barred | Not considered on merits here because claim was previously litigated and/or time-barred |
| Voluntariness of plea / need for interpreter | Plea was not knowing/voluntary; trial counsel should have obtained an interpreter | Claim is untimely; Singh offers no newly discoverable facts or legal basis within § 9545(b) exceptions | Not reached on merits — untimely petition without statutory exception; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit procedures for PCRA counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (court must independently review merits when counsel files no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa. Super. 2003) (substantial compliance with Turner/Finley can suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (untimely post‑sentence motion does not toll appeal deadline)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (untimely PCRA petitions must be dismissed absent proof of statutory exception)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders brief may be accepted in lieu of Turner/Finley letter)