Com. v. Suny, R.
1215 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Ralph Suny was convicted by jury of two counts of burglary, three counts of conspiracy to commit burglary, and DUI; sentenced to an aggregate 13 years 3 months to 27 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court on November 6, 2006; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance on July 6, 2007; no certiorari filed to U.S. Supreme Court.
- Suny filed two prior PCRA petitions (2007 and 2011), both dismissed and those dismissals were affirmed on appeal.
- On January 12, 2016 Suny filed a pro se “Motion for Correction/Modification of Sentence”; the trial court treated it as a PCRA petition and issued notice to dismiss.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on March 29, 2016 because Suny’s judgment was final in October 2007 and he invoked no statutory timeliness exceptions.
- Suny argued his sentence was illegal (one burglary not convicted; minimums exceed one-half of maximums) and that timeliness limits did not apply; court rejected these arguments and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition titled "Motion for Correction/Modification of Sentence" must be treated as a PCRA petition | Suny treated it as a direct motion to correct sentence outside PCRA | Commonwealth: claims cognizable under PCRA should be treated as PCRA regardless of title | Court: Petition is governed by PCRA (PCRA is sole collateral remedy) |
| Whether the petition was timely under the PCRA | Suny: sentence illegal; timeliness limits inapplicable | Commonwealth: judgment final Oct 2007; petition filed Jan 2016 is untimely | Court: Untimely; lacks jurisdiction absent exception |
| Whether legality-of-sentence claims bypass PCRA timeliness | Suny: legality issues always reviewable; therefore not subject to PCRA time bar | Commonwealth: Fahy requires legality claims still satisfy PCRA timeliness or exceptions | Court: Legality claims must satisfy PCRA time limits or exception (Fahy) |
| Whether ineffective assistance on direct appeal saves timeliness | Suny: appellate counsel ineffective for not raising sentencing issues | Commonwealth: ineffective-assistance claim does not rescue untimely petition | Court: Ineffective-assistance claim cannot save otherwise untimely PCRA petition (per Fahy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural guidance for counsel seeking to withdraw under Turner/Finley)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural guidance for PCRA counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the sole means for collateral relief; timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (legality-of-sentence claims cognizable under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims remain subject to PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)