Com. v. Smith, K.
2265 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- Kevin Eugene Smith was convicted by jury of two bank robberies and related theft/receiving crimes on April 10, 2013; sentenced May 29, 2013 to 42–84 months incarceration.
- Smith’s first PCRA petition was denied January 27, 2014, but the court granted leave to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc; this Court affirmed the judgment on August 13, 2014; no further appeal to the PA Supreme Court was filed.
- Smith filed a pro se second PCRA petition on September 29, 2015; the PCRA court appointed counsel, held a hearing, and dismissed the petition as untimely on November 25, 2015.
- Appointed PCRA counsel submitted a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and petition to withdraw; counsel complied with requirements and notified Smith of his rights.
- Although Smith filed a pro se notice of appeal while still represented (creating hybrid-representation concerns), the Superior Court accepted the appeal for the sake of judicial economy and reviewed the timeliness issue on the merits.
- The court concluded the petition was facially untimely (filed after the one-year statutory filing period) and that Smith failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to overcome the time-bar.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s second PCRA petition was timely | Petition filed within one year from his personal receipt of appellate decision (claimed late start) | Petition was filed after the one-year deadline from when judgment became final; no exception pleaded | Petition was untimely; no statutory exception proved; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal requirements | N/A (issue raised by court review) | Counsel submitted no-merit letter, notified client, and sought leave to withdraw | Counsel substantially complied; withdrawal granted |
| Whether pro se filings while counsel appointed require quash of appeal | Smith proceeded pro se and filed Rule 1925(b) statement | Pro se filings while represented are null; appeal could be quashed | Court declined to quash for judicial economy and treated the notice as properly filed |
| Whether court has jurisdiction to consider untimely PCRA claims absent statutory exception | N/A | Time-bar is jurisdictional; only statutory exceptions can extend the filing period | Time restrictions are jurisdictional; equitable tolling unavailable; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw for lack of meritorious appellate issues)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (PCRA counsel withdrawal framework)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (companion to Turner on no-merit procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (prohibition on hybrid representation; pro se filings while represented must be referred to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993) (no right to hybrid representation)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Turner/Finley duties require zealous review and specified client notice)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court review required after counsel files no-merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 48 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials)