Com. v. Wallace, H.
1921 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- In 2006 a jury convicted HyQuawnn Bakerree Wallace of aggravated assault, burglary, multiple counts of conspiracy, simple assault, and robbery; he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 25½ to 51 years.
- Wallace’s direct appeal was affirmed by this Court in 2007; he did not seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court within the deadline.
- Wallace filed multiple PCRA petitions: a first in 2010 (dismissed and appeal denied), a second in 2012 (dismissed; appeal dismissed for failure to file a brief), and the present third petition filed January 25, 2016.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss the 2016 petition and dismissed it on May 17, 2016; Wallace appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- Wallace’s principal arguments raised ineffective assistance of counsel (including a “layered” claim tied to plea bargaining and alleged failures to follow Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)) and a constitutional challenge to the PCRA statute’s timeliness bar.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Wallace’s 2016 petition was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 and he failed to plead or prove any statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wallace) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether layered ineffective assistance of counsel (including failure to follow Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)) deprived Wallace of Sixth Amendment rights | Counsel’s successive errors and failure to follow appellate rule 2119(f) constituted layered ineffective assistance affecting plea negotiations and trial rights | Claims are untimely collateral claims and were not properly pleaded; merits not reached because petition is time-barred | Dismissed as untimely; court did not reach merits because Wallace failed to plead a statutory exception to PCRA time bar |
| Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 is unconstitutional because it deprives courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims | PCRA time limits are unconstitutional and prevent courts from addressing violations of Wallace’s constitutional rights | Statute is procedural and jurisdictional; Wallace failed to identify a Supreme Court decision creating a retroactive constitutional right fitting § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Rejected; Wallace did not plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions, so the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness of PCRA petition implicates jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (courts may not create equitable exceptions to PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (a judgment is final at conclusion of direct review or expiration of time to seek review; one-year filing rule explained)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory exceptions to PCRA time bar must be pled in the petition)