Com. v. Weaver, M.
Com. v. Weaver, M. No. 810 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Mark Alan Weaver was convicted by a jury in Nov. 2009 of multiple sexual and related offenses and sentenced in Feb. 2010 to an aggregate term of 9 to 40 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed his judgment of sentence; no further direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was taken, so his judgment became final May 11, 2011.
- Weaver filed a timely first PCRA petition in Apr. 2012; the petition was litigated, denied, and that denial was affirmed on appeal (appeal to Pa. Supreme Court denied).
- Weaver filed an untimely second PCRA in Dec. 2013 (denied; no appeal) and an untimely third PCRA in Apr. 2016, which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.
- Weaver appealed the dismissal, arguing he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of prior counsel and that the time bar should not apply (including assertions of actual innocence); the PCRA court issued an opinion and the Superior Court reviewed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of prior counsel | Weaver: prior counsel were ineffective and an evidentiary hearing is warranted to develop those claims | Commonwealth: petition was untimely and Weaver did not plead a time‑bar exception or present facts requiring a hearing | Denied — no hearing required because the petition was jurisdictionally untimely and Weaver did not plead a statutory exception or otherwise invoke jurisdictional relief |
| Whether the PCRA time bar is inapplicable due to ineffective assistance or actual innocence (nunc pro tunc review) | Weaver: claims of counsel ineffectiveness and asserted innocence excuse the one‑year filing requirement | Commonwealth: PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; exceptions must be pleaded and proved within statutory limits | Denied — petition untimely; Weaver did not plead any §9545(b)(1) exception nor timely invoke any exception, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (60‑day filing requirement for PCRA exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (procedural posture and waiver of ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to PCRA evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness is jurisdictional and cannot be ignored)