106 A.3d 159
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Smith appeals a December 18, 2013 PCRA dismissal of his third PCRA petition in Beaver County.
- Judgment of sentence became final on September 29, 2004 after the 90-day U.S. Supreme Court certiorari period.
- Smith filed the current petition on August 28, 2013, nearly nine years after finality.
- PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely and found no proven statutory exception.
- Appellate standard requires review to defer to PCRA findings and treat timeliness as jurisdictional; merits are reviewed only if timely.
- This Court also recognizes the PCRA time bar as constitutionally valid under Peterkin and Fahy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the PCRA petition timely? | Smith argues timeliness should be excused. | Smith failed to file within one year of final judgment without valid exception. | Petition untimely; no valid exception proven. |
| Whether any statutory exception applied to toll the time bar? | Smith asserts one of the exceptions applies. | No applicable exception proven by Smith. | No statutory exception established. |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by addressing merits given untimeliness? | If timely, merits should be considered. | Timeliness bars merits review. | Jurisdiction to address merits is lacking due to untimeliness. |
| Is the PCRA time-bar constitutional? | Time-bar infringes due process or habeas rights. | Time-bar is constitutional. | Time-bar deemed constitutionally valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA review requires supported record and deference to trial court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; exceptions govern merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA time limitation is constitutional and does not violate due process)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (Reiterates reasonableness of PCRA time-bar under due process)