Com. v. Talley, M.
Com. v. Talley, M. No. 1825 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Maurice Talley was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for the December 26, 1967 death of Patricia Sholley and sentenced to life imprisonment; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 1974.
- Evidence at trial included eyewitness sightings of a man fitting Talley’s description with the victim, Talley’s fingerprints on the victim’s car, and blood-stained clothing and the victim’s property found in his residence.
- Talley filed a PCRA petition in 1983; after a hearing relief was denied and this Court rejected multiple ineffective-assistance claims on appeal in 1986.
- On October 3, 2016 Talley filed a pro se motion for counsel and an appeal nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court treated the filing as a new PCRA petition and dismissed it as untimely.
- Talley raised claims including newly discovered evidence, denial of a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and appellate), fraud/witness perjury, and ambiguous jury instruction/due process; the PCRA court found no exception to the statutory one-year timeliness bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / PCRA jurisdiction | Talley sought to proceed nunc pro tunc and treated filing as an appeal | Commonwealth and PCRA court: the October 3, 2016 filing is an untimely PCRA petition beyond the one-year limit | Court held the filing was an untimely PCRA petition and the court lacked jurisdiction to review merits |
| Newly discovered evidence exception to timeliness (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Talley asserted after-discovered evidence and PTSD and alleged witness contradictions supporting relief | Commonwealth: Talley failed to specify what evidence, when it was discovered, or to show due diligence in timely filing | Held Talley did not meet the 60-day filing requirement or show when he discovered the facts; exception not satisfied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Talley claimed counsel were ineffective at trial, sentencing, and appeal | Commonwealth: Ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse PCRA time bar unless tied to a timeliness exception | Held such claims cannot overcome the jurisdictional timeliness requirement and were therefore insufficient |
| Alleged fraud/perjury and due process defects | Talley alleged state police/witness fraud and ambiguous jury charge violated due process | Commonwealth: these matters were known during the investigation/trial in the 1970s and thus are not newly discovered | Held claims were time-barred because they were or should have been known earlier and do not trigger an exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Talley, 318 A.2d 922 (Pa. 1974) (affirming Talley’s conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (post-judgment filings are treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (quoting standard for reviewing PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (jurisdictional effect of PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 911 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims and PCRA timing)