Com. v. Steinman, S.
150 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Seth Steinman was convicted by a jury on April 19, 2004 of rape, sexual assault, and simple assault; sentenced May 19, 2005 to 10½–22 years imprisonment.
- Direct appeal was exhausted; Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed and the PA Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2007.
- Steinman filed a timely first PCRA petition in July 2007; it was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal, with PA Supreme Court refusing review in 2009.
- On May 31, 2012 Steinman filed a serial PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance based on allegedly rejected plea offer and invoking the March 21, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decisions Lafler and Frye.
- The trial court dismissed the 2012 petition as untimely under the PCRA; Steinman appealed and the Superior Court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 PCRA petition was timely | Steinman: petition filed within 60 days of learning of Lafler/Frye (April 17, 2012) and thus fits the new-right exception | Commonwealth: judgment became final in 2007; petition filed in 2012 is untimely and Lafler/Frye do not create a new constitutional right for §9545(b)(1)(iii) purposes | Petition untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Lafler/Frye create a new constitutional right for retroactive collateral relief | Steinman: Lafler and Frye recognized new constitutional rules tied to counsel’s failure to preserve or accept plea offers | Commonwealth: Lafler/Frye applied existing Sixth Amendment principles; do not constitute a new constitutional right under PCRA exception | Court held Lafler/Frye do not create a new constitutional right for the PCRA timing exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Steinman, 915 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super. 2006) (affirming conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Steinman, 976 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 2009) (affirming denial of first PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness is jurisdictional under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Lafler and Frye do not announce a new constitutional right for §9545(b)(1)(iii))
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same conclusion regarding Lafler and Frye)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012) (addressed counsel’s duties re: plea offers)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (addressed prejudice when counsel’s errors affect plea offers)