Com. v. Smallis, P.
1660 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Pamela Smallis pled guilty (negotiated plea) on August 7, 2013 to multiple counts stemming from child pornography and related offenses and was sentenced to 2–4 years’ incarceration plus 3 years’ probation.
- No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed; sentence became final on September 6, 2013 (30 days after sentencing).
- Smallis filed a timely first PCRA petition in December 2013 alleging plea counsel ineffective for not advising on appeal/post-sentence rights; that petition was dismissed and the Superior Court affirmed in October 2014; the Supreme Court denied allowance in April 2015.
- On July 27, 2015 Smallis filed a second, pro se PCRA petition raising governmental interference and newly discovered fact exceptions to the PCRA timeliness bar, alleging warrantless/excessive review of her phone and withheld discovery.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the second petition as untimely on September 1, 2015; Smallis appealed and also moved to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office for conflict, which the Superior Court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Smallis: petition relies on newly discovered facts/governmental interference so timeliness exception applies | Commonwealth: petition filed after one‑year PCRA deadline and exceptions not pleaded or proved | Court: Dismissed—petition untimely; exceptions not established |
| Governmental‑interference exception | Police/AG withheld or misrepresented phone data and reviewed phone without warrant; discovery incomplete | Commonwealth: allegations are vague, incoherent, and unsupported; plaintiff failed to plead/prove interference or due diligence | Court: Exception not shown; petitioner failed to plead specific facts or show due diligence |
| Challenge to search/seizure after guilty plea | Smallis: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on alleged illegal phone search | Commonwealth: negotiated guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects including suppression claims | Court: Suppression claim waived by plea; in any event untimely and not rescuable by PCRA exceptions |
| Conflict of interest (Attorney General) | Smallis: AG’s Office conflicted because it represented Commonwealth and was subject of complaint | Commonwealth: motion raised first on appeal and unsupported by evidence | Court: Waived for failure to raise below; no factual showing of actual conflict; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA jurisdictional timeliness and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (governmental‑interference exception requires pleading and proof plus due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Rivers, 786 A.2d 923 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must plead and prove allegations by a preponderance)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence standard strictly enforced for PCRA exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (ineffectiveness labels cannot save an otherwise untimely PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Khorey, 555 A.2d 100 (Pa. 1989) (standard for reviewing alleged conflicts of interest)