270 A.3d 1129
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- In May 1995 Andre Strum shot and killed Robert Malcom; a jury convicted Strum of first-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and PIC in 1997 and he received life plus additional terms.
- Strum pursued multiple post-conviction and habeas petitions over many years; this was his fifth PCRA petition, filed July 13, 2018.
- Strum conceded his petition was facially untimely but invoked the PCRA exceptions, claiming McCoy v. Louisiana created a newly recognized constitutional right entitling him to relief; he also argued McCoy could be treated as a newly-discovered “fact.”
- His substantive claim: trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to evidence of an unrelated gun at trial, which Strum said amounted to counsel admitting guilt on the PIC charge—a McCoy-type structural error.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, dismissed the petition as untimely on December 9, 2020, and the Superior Court affirmed, holding Strum failed to establish a timeliness exception and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strum invoked a timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) based on McCoy | Strum: McCoy announced a new constitutional right (defendant controls admission of guilt) that applies here and opens collateral review | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Even if McCoy announced a right, neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor PA Supreme Court has held McCoy retroactive; thus § 9545(b)(1)(iii) not met | Court held Strum failed to prove retroactivity; petition untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether McCoy qualifies as a newly-discovered “fact” under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Strum: McCoy itself is a new "fact" that was previously unknown and triggers the exception | Commonwealth: Decisional law is not a “fact” for § 9545(b)(1)(ii); Reid controls | Court held decisional law is not a new fact; exception not met |
| Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion / applied an overly stringent standard, causing manifest injustice | Strum: PCRA court used a stringent review and thereby committed error allowing manifest injustice | Commonwealth: PCRA and appellate courts applied correct standards (timeliness jurisdictional rule and applicable precedent) | Court held no abuse; applied proper legal standards and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (defendant has right to insist counsel not admit guilt; counsel’s contrary admission may be structural error)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 196 A.3d 1021 (Pa. 2018) (describing McCoy and its constitutional holding)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (retroactivity under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) must have been decided by the relevant court at the time the PCRA petition is filed)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 (Pa. 2020) (subsequent decisional law does not constitute a newly‑discovered "fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (timeliness of PCRA petitions implicates jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)