Com. v. Swick, J.
Com. v. Swick, J. No. 1172 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 21, 2017Background
- Jamie Lynn Swick was convicted by a jury of two counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and statutory sexual assault for a sexual relationship with a 14‑year‑old; she was ultimately resentenced on July 19, 2010 to 180–360 months’ imprisonment.
- Swick filed a first PCRA petition on August 12, 2011; after hearings the PCRA court denied relief and this Court affirmed on August 25, 2015; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on February 1, 2016.
- Swick filed a second PCRA petition on April 27, 2016 (she contended the petition should be deemed filed April 23, 2016 under the prisoner‑mailbox rule).
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, Swick responded, and the court dismissed the second petition as untimely on June 27, 2016; Swick appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness as jurisdictional and applied the one‑year filing rule plus the 60‑day rule for successive petitions resolving prior PCRA review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Swick argued the petition was timely because it was filed within 60 days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review of her first PCRA (she calculated a 60‑day window ending April 25, 2016) | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the judgment became final Aug 18, 2010 and the second petition filed in 2016 was more than one year late and did not plead a timeliness exception | Petition untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Applicability of 60‑day rule for successive PCRA petitions | Swick contended she had 60 days after the Supreme Court’s Feb 1, 2016 order to file a subsequent petition | Court applied Lark: the 60‑day clock runs from the date the prior PCRA was finally resolved, but a successive petition still must be filed within one year of final judgment unless an exception applies | Court held 60 days from Feb 1, 2016 was April 1, 2016 under statutory time computation; petition missed the one‑year limit and 60‑day requirement |
| Prisoner‑mailbox rule / filing date | Swick asserted delivery to prison mailroom on April 23, 2016 made the filing timely | Commonwealth noted even if April 23 were the filing date, the petition still did not satisfy the one‑year bar or the 60‑day window as required | Prisoner‑mailbox rule did not cure the jurisdictional untimeliness; petition remains untimely |
| Merits claims (ineffective assistance, constitutional violations, time‑served relief) | Swick raised ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, constitutional claims, and argued time served could be a remedy | Commonwealth relied on procedural default: court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits because petition untimely | Court did not address merits; dismissed on timeliness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time restrictions are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (successive PCRA petition timing; 60‑day rule explained)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 766 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2001) (prisoner‑mailbox rule for filing PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prisoner‑mailbox rule precedent)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (review principles cited in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (standard for reviewing PCRA denials)