Com. v. Victor, W., 1329 WDA 2020

Appellant William Victor was charged with simple assault, disorderly conduct, and harassment and tried non-jury in January–February 2020; the court convicted him and sentenced him to 18–36 months on February 6, 2020.
The court granted one short extension (until March 10, 2020) to file post‑sentence motions, but Victor filed no post‑sentence motion and did not file a timely notice of appeal (appeal period expired March 9, 2020).
New counsel filed a motion on November 9, 2020 seeking an extension nunc pro tunc to file post‑sentence motions and requesting a Rule 600 hearing; the motion alleged counsel failed to file post‑sentence motions despite Victor’s request and noted transcript delays.
The trial court denied the November 16, 2020 motion as untimely and lacking jurisdiction; Victor appealed to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court held that, because the motion raised an ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel claim (cognizable under the PCRA), the trial court erred by not treating the filing as a first PCRA petition; it vacated the denial and remanded for PCRA consideration.
The Superior Court also held Victor’s Rule 600 claim (framed as trial‑court error) was not cognizable under the PCRA and was waived because he failed to raise it by timely direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Victor)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Victor's motion for an extension of time to file post‑sentence motions (nunc pro tunc)	Extraordinary circumstances (transcript delay, administrative issues, counsel failures) and prior short extension justify nunc pro tunc relief	Trial court lacked jurisdiction because the judgment became final and the court could not enlarge the appeal/post‑sentence period	Superior Court: Motion raised ineffective assistance; should be treated as a first PCRA petition—vacated denial and remanded for PCRA consideration
Whether the trial court erred in denying Victor a Rule 600 hearing / relief	Trial court should have heard and ruled on Rule 600 claim (pretrial/posttrial delay)	Claim was not properly before the court after judgment became final; Rule 600 claim is not cognizable in a PCRA filing and was not raised on direct appeal	Superior Court: Rule 600 claim waived because Victor failed to file a timely direct appeal; not cognizable under the PCRA

Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA subsumes collateral relief after sentence becomes final)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (motions filed after finality that raise PCRA‑cognizable issues must be treated as PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2001) (titling of post‑finality filings does not control substance; treat PCRA claims as PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Clementi, 235 A.3d 473 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (Section 5505 and reconsideration nunc pro tunc where extraordinary cause shown)
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for waiver of counsel and self‑representation)