Com. v. St. George, P.
3583 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Percy St. George was convicted in 1998 of robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, possession of instruments of crime, and conspiracy arising from a 1996 kidnapping/robbery; he received a 10–20 year sentence in 1999.
- Direct appeal was affirmed in 2002 and the judgment of sentence became final in March 2002 (no allowance petition filed to the PA Supreme Court).
- St. George filed multiple PCRA petitions: a pro se petition in 2002 (appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; petition dismissed 2004), a second PCRA filed in 2012 (dismissed and affirmed in 2016), and the instant, third PCRA filed May 19, 2016.
- The third PCRA alleged ineffective assistance by prior counsel and sought restoration of direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness de novo, found the petition filed more than 14 years after finality, determined St. George failed to plead or prove any § 9545(b)(1) exception (and failed to comply with § 9545(b)(2)’s 60‑day requirement), and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA time limits in §9545(b) are jurisdictional | St. George argued timeliness limits are dicta and not jurisdictional; statute’s plain text/legislative intent do not make time limits jurisdictional | Commonwealth/Trial court argued timeliness is jurisdictional and an untimely petition deprives courts of jurisdiction | Court held §9545(b) timeliness is jurisdictional; untimely petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether prior PCRA filings/attachments converted the 2016 filing into a timely amendment | St. George argued his 2016 filing should be treated as an amendment to his earlier timely PCRA petitions | Commonwealth argued prior petitions were dismissed and the 2016 filing was a new, untimely petition | Court held the 2016 filing was a new, untimely petition and not a timely amendment |
| Whether claims of prior counsel’s ineffectiveness excuse untimeliness | St. George contended PCRA counsel abandoned him and was ineffective, which should excuse time-bar | Commonwealth maintained counsel ineffective assistance does not satisfy statutory exceptions to timeliness | Court held counsel ineffectiveness cannot rescue an otherwise untimely PCRA (claims were previously litigated/meritless) |
| Whether Appellant pled and proved any §9545(b)(1) exception within 60 days | St. George asserted exceptions applied and statutory time limits shouldn’t bar review | Commonwealth noted petitioner bore burden to plead/prove an exception and comply with 60‑day filing rule | Court held St. George failed to plead/prove any §9545(b)(1) exception or file within 60 days, so petition is untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standards for appointed counsel withdrawing with no‑merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for no‑merit letters by PCRA counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely PCRA must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction absent pleaded exception)
- Commonwealth v. Fahay, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (counsel ineffectiveness cannot salvage an otherwise untimely PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness is threshold jurisdictional inquiry in post‑conviction petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (petitioner must plead and prove statutory exceptions to PCRA time‑bar)