Com. v. Torres, A.
Com. v. Torres, A. No. 408 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- On January 9, 2011, after a bar fight appellant Alberto Torres fired a gun at another patron; no one was injured. He was charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, prohibited possession of a firearm, and prohibited offensive weapons.
- Juries convicted Torres on all counts in December 2012 and January 2013; he received an aggregate sentence of 138 to 276 months' incarceration.
- Torres pursued direct appeal; the Superior Court affirmed (March 21, 2014) and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal (August 20, 2014). His judgment became final November 18, 2014.
- Torres filed a first PCRA petition (Nov. 21, 2014); appointed counsel (Cayla Amsley) filed an amended petition (Mar. 9, 2015); the first PCRA was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- Torres filed a second PCRA petition on Nov. 7, 2016 claiming ineffective assistance by PCRA counsel (Amsley) and trial counsel for failing to raise a specific trial-counsel-ineffectiveness claim; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely and without jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the second PCRA untimely and that Torres failed to prove any statutory exception (notably the newly-discovered-fact exception) or exercise due diligence to discover the alleged omission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing the second PCRA as untimely where Torres pleaded a statutory timeliness exception | Torres: Amsley’s failure to raise a trial-counsel-ineffectiveness claim and Torres’s alleged unawareness of the amended petition constitute a newly-discovered fact exception | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Torres’s petition was filed more than one year after final judgment and he did not plead/prove a timeliness exception or due diligence | Held: Petition untimely; no jurisdiction. Torres failed to prove an exception or due diligence; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing was erroneous where Torres raised material factual disputes about diligence | Torres: factual dispute exists about whether he knew of Amsley’s amended petition | Commonwealth: record shows amended petition filed and Torres attended the PCRA hearing; no genuine disputed material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing | Held: No hearing required; dismissal without hearing proper |
| Whether PCRA rights should be restored due to counsel’s omissions rendering proceedings unfair | Torres: omission by PCRA counsel denied meaningful review and amounted to abandonment | Commonwealth: PCRA counsel’s alleged omission does not automatically excuse timeliness unless counsel abandoned the client; no such showing here | Held: No relief; allegations do not meet abandonment standard and do not excuse the time-bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective-assistance claims do not bypass PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (same: ineffectiveness allegations do not excuse time-bar)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness generally does not constitute a newly-discovered-fact exception)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (due diligence standard for newly-discovered facts)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive court of jurisdiction)