Com. v. Weist, A., 2954 EDA 2015

Alan Richard Weist pleaded guilty to two counts of rape of a child on January 7, 2011, and was sentenced on March 31, 2011 to 14–40 years’ imprisonment.
He did not file a direct appeal. On December 14, 2011, Weist filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and then withdrawn under Turner/Finley procedures; the first PCRA was dismissed and affirmed on appeal in 2013.
On June 1, 2015, Weist filed a pro se “Petition for Discovery,” which the PCRA court treated as a second PCRA petition and denied by order entered September 1, 2015.
Weist appealed but initially failed to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement; the Superior Court affirmed for waiver, then granted reconsideration and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Weist received the 1925(b) order.
The PCRA court found Weist did not receive the 1925(b) order, removing automatic waiver, but the court and Superior Court nevertheless held the June 1, 2015 petition was untimely under the PCRA time bar and that Weist did not plead any statutory exception.
The Superior Court affirmed dismissal as jurisdictionally time-barred; it also noted the discovery petition would fail on its merits under Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(1) absent exceptional circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the June 1, 2015 filing is a timely PCRA petition	Weist sought discovery / relief via his petition	Commonwealth/PCRA court treated the filing as a second PCRA petition and argued it is subject to PCRA timing	The petition is a PCRA petition but untimely under §9545(b)
Whether failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement waived appellate issues	N/A (Weist claimed he never received the 1925(b) order)	Commonwealth argued waiver due to no 1925(b) statement filed	PCRA court found Weist did not receive the order; issues not automatically waived
Whether Superior Court may reach merits despite timeliness defect	Weist implicitly sought review of underlying claims	Commonwealth argued courts lack jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider merits because petition was time-barred
Whether discovery was available outside PCRA proceedings	Weist invoked a ‘‘Petition for Discovery’’	Commonwealth/PCRA court argued Rule 902 limits discovery absent exceptional circumstances	Even if treated outside PCRA, discovery denied because no exceptional circumstances shown

Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timeliness requirements are jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (courts lack jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (timeliness is a threshold jurisdictional question to be considered sua sponte)
Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249 (Pa. 2002) (no waiver where appellant was not served with order directing filing of 1925(b) statement)
Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (one-year PCRA filing rule and exception pleading requirement)
Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (petitioner must properly plead and prove exception to timeliness)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (untimely PCRA petition deprives courts of jurisdiction)