Com. v. Tyler, L.
142 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Lance Tyler was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possessing an instrument of crime and sentenced to 22½ to 45 years on December 19, 2006.
- Direct appeal affirmed by this Court on January 31, 2008; judgment became final March 3, 2008 (no allowance petition to the PA Supreme Court).
- Tyler filed multiple PCRA petitions; prior collateral proceedings included appointment and withdrawal of counsel, pro se filings, a Grazier hearing, and prior appeals culminating in affirmance in 2012.
- On December 15, 2015, Tyler filed a pro se “Motion to Vacate Judgment of Sentence,” which the Clerk treated as a PCRA petition; the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and then dismissed the petition on December 6, 2016 as untimely.
- Tyler argued the filing was not a PCRA petition and alternatively relied on the trial court’s inherent jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence and alleged docketing defects extending his appeal period.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was properly treated as a PCRA petition and whether it was timely; it affirmed dismissal because the petition was untimely and no statutory exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tyler) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 15, 2015 filing should be treated as a PCRA petition | The filing was a non-PCRA “Motion to Vacate” and thus not subject to PCRA time bars | The substance of the filing raised claims cognizable under the PCRA, so it must be treated as a PCRA petition | Court held it is a PCRA petition and must be analyzed under PCRA law |
| Whether the petition was timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) | The filing was not a PCRA petition (thus timeliness argument inapplicable); also alleged docketing defects | Judgment became final March 3, 2008; petition filed Dec 15, 2015, well after the one-year deadline | Court held petition untimely — filed more than one year after judgment became final |
| Whether any statutory timeliness exception applies | Argued docketing errors and inherent jurisdiction for illegal sentence might excuse time-bar | No specific statutory timeliness exception was pleaded or proven; legality claims still subject to PCRA time limits | Court held Tyler did not invoke or prove any statutory exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether alleged illegal sentence claims avoid PCRA time limits | Claimed illegal sentence or sentencing errors exempt from PCRA timing | Under controlling precedent, legality-of-sentence claims are reviewable in PCRA but remain subject to timeliness requirements or exceptions | Court rejected the claim that illegality avoids PCRA limits and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (substance of petition controls whether PCRA applies)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (claims cognizable under PCRA must be treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are cognizable under the PCRA but remain subject to its time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for permitting a defendant to proceed pro se in post-conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove applicability of PCRA timeliness exceptions)