Com. v. Tyson, T., Sr.
Com. v. Tyson, T., Sr. No. 1697 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Thomas D. Tyson, Sr. was convicted by a jury of aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault of a child under 13 for molesting his five-year-old granddaughter (convicted March 17, 2016).
- On August 2, 2016, the trial court sentenced Tyson to 3–10 years’ incarceration plus five years’ probation and provided written notice of post-sentence rights; Tyson acknowledged understanding those rights at sentencing.
- Tyson filed a motion on August 11, 2016 seeking an extension to file post-sentence motions; the court granted a 20-day extension on August 15, 2016, making post-sentence motions due September 5, 2016.
- Tyson filed a post-sentence motion on September 6, 2016 (one day late); the trial court denied it on September 13, 2016.
- Tyson filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2016 (more than 30 days after sentencing). The Superior Court reviewed whether the appeal was timely and thus whether it had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction over Tyson’s appeal | Commonwealth: appeal is untimely because no timely post-sentence motion was filed to toll the appeal period | Tyson: challenged sufficiency/weight of evidence and a jury instruction (implying appeal should proceed) | Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction because Tyson did not file a timely post-sentence motion and his notice of appeal was filed after the 30-day appeal period |
| Whether an untimely post-sentence motion tolls the appeal period | Commonwealth: relies on precedent that untimely motions do not toll appeal period | Tyson: sought extension and filed late motion (arguably relying on extension granted) | Court held the granted extension’s deadline was Sept. 5; motion filed Sept. 6 was untimely and does not toll the appeal period |
| Whether Tyson’s substantive claims (sufficiency/weight/jury instruction) could be reviewed despite late appeal | Commonwealth: procedural default bars review absent timely appeal | Tyson: asserted merits but did not contest timeliness | Court declined to reach merits due to jurisdictional defect |
| Whether the trial court’s extension affected the 30-day appeal deadline | Tyson: relied on extension to file post-sentence motion | Commonwealth: an untimely post-sentence motion—even after an extension motion outcome—does not permit appeal beyond 30 days | Court confirmed that without a timely post-sentence motion, notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of sentence; appeal was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Nahavandian, 954 A.2d 625 (Pa. Super. 2008) (jurisdiction vests upon filing a timely notice of appeal)
- Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (an untimely post-sentence motion does not toll the appeal period)
- Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (only a timely post-sentence motion can extend the appeal filing period)