Com. v. Thompson, R.
Com. v. Thompson, R. No. 354 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Steven Thompson, Jr. (also known as Minister Wali Akbar El) was convicted of disorderly conduct, harassment, and possession of marijuana and sentenced on October 29, 2015 to 90 days’ incarceration and 32 hours of community service.
- Thompson did not file a direct appeal within the 30-day period, so his judgment of sentence became final on November 30, 2015.
- On December 8, 2016, Thompson filed a PCRA petition requesting nunc pro tunc permission to file a direct appeal; the PCRA court granted that relief on January 17, 2017.
- Thompson’s appellate arguments included that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence (marijuana) and that the evidence was insufficient for his harassment and disorderly conduct convictions.
- The Commonwealth challenged the PCRA petition as untimely; Thompson did not invoke any of the statutory exceptions to the one-year filing requirement.
- The Superior Court sua sponte addressed PCRA timeliness/jurisdiction and concluded the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to grant nunc pro tunc relief because the petition was filed after the one-year deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the PCRA petition timely so the PCRA court could grant nunc pro tunc relief? | Thompson implicitly argued entitlement to relief by filing the untimely PCRA petition to permit a direct appeal. | PCRA (Commonwealth) argued petition was filed after the one-year deadline and no exception applies. | Petition was untimely (filed Dec 8, 2016 after Nov 30, 2016 deadline); PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; order granting nunc pro tunc relief null and void; appeal quashed. |
| May the Superior Court reach the merits of suppression and sufficiency claims raised on appeal? | Thompson argued trial court erred on suppression and insufficiency grounds. | Commonwealth argued procedural defect (jurisdictional timeliness) bars review. | Superior Court did not reach the merits because jurisdictional defect prevented review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (timeliness rule: PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of when judgment becomes final)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (the PCRA one-year time bar is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 771 A.2d 721 (Pa. 2001) (orders issued by a court without jurisdiction are null and void)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 788 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parole/probation revocation sentencing does not affect the date a judgment of sentence becomes final)
- Commonwealth v. Fenati, 748 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2000) (calculation of the one-year filing period; leap-year consideration)