Com. v. Thomason, A.
Com. v. Thomason, A. No. 260 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Anthony Thomason was convicted of first-degree murder and related firearm offenses for a 2003 homicide and sentenced in 2006 to life without parole.
- He filed a timely first pro se PCRA petition (2009) with counsel; it was dismissed in 2011 and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal in 2013; his petition for allowance of appeal to the PA Supreme Court was denied in May 2014.
- While his first PCRA appeal was pending, Thomason filed a second pro se PCRA petition on March 7, 2014.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as both untimely and premature (filed while the first petition was pending), and there were docketing/notice irregularities concerning Rule 907 notices and service to Thomason.
- Thomason appealed; the Superior Court found his appellate filing timely under the prisoner mailbox rule despite clerical defects, then affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (prematurity) and for untimeliness under the PCRA time–bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomason) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Rule 907 notice/notice defects denied meaningful opportunity to respond | Thomason: PCRA court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 and did not inform reasons for dismissal, denying meaningful chance to amend/respond | PCRA court: Notice/docket irregularities occurred but dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness, not on merits; appellant had opportunity to respond | Held: Procedural irregularities did not alter outcome; dismissal affirmed on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds |
| 2. Whether lack of appointed counsel for first PCRA denied relief or required hearing | Thomason: Denied assistance of counsel in first PCRA, warranting relief or evaluation of second petition | Commonwealth: No basis to reach merits; second petition was premature and untimely, so counsel issue does not revive jurisdiction | Held: Court did not reach merits of ineffective assistance claim because petition was jurisdictionally barred |
| 3. Whether second PCRA was premature because first PCRA appeal was pending | Thomason: Filed second petition while first appeal pending but disputed PCRA court’s jurisdictional conclusion | Commonwealth: PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider second petition while prior petition was under review | Held: Dismissal affirmed—filing a successive PCRA while an earlier PCRA is pending is premature and deprives court of jurisdiction |
| 4. Whether second PCRA was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) | Thomason: Did not establish any statutory timeliness exception | Commonwealth: Judgment of sentence became final in 2008; second petition filed in 2014 is patently untimely and no statutory exception proven | Held: Dismissal affirmed as untimely; PCRA lacks jurisdiction over untimely petitions |
| 5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective (constitutional claim) | Thomason: Raised ineffective assistance of counsel claim in second PCRA | Commonwealth: Claim could not be considered because petition was jurisdictionally barred (premature/untimely) | Held: Ineffective assistance claim not reached; petition dismissed on procedural grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (successive PCRA petitions filed while earlier PCRA is pending are premature and deprive the court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (same jurisdictional rule on filing subsequent PCRA petitions during pendency of prior PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (clerk of courts must accept and process timely notices of appeal despite perceived defects)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prisoner mailbox rule: pro se prisoner appeals are deemed filed when deposited with prison authorities)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive the court of jurisdiction)