Com. v. Wilson, T.
76 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 30, 2016Background
- Appellant Timothy Wilson pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea on August 29, 2007, and received an aggregate sentence of 5 to 10 years. He filed no post-sentence motion or direct appeal.
- Wilson filed a pro se PCRA petition on July 9, 2015, nearly eight years after his judgment became final (final on Sept. 28, 2007).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and motion to withdraw; the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on Dec. 2, 2015. Counsel was permitted to withdraw.
- On appeal, counsel submitted a Turner/Finley-style brief (treated under that standard) arguing the sole issue: whether Wilson’s petition was timely or an exception to the PCRA time bar applied.
- Wilson argued governmental interference and/or newly discovered facts (mental health/medication/learning disability in June 2015) meant the 60-day exception applied; the court found the plea/sentencing transcript showed he was informed of post-sentence/appellate rights and waived reading of them.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal as time-barred, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and rejected Wilson’s undeveloped mental-health allegation as insufficient to prove a timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petition was timely or an exception to the one-year time bar applies | Wilson: governmental interference / facts unknown until June 2015 (mental-health/medication/learning disability) triggering §9545(b)(1) exception | Commonwealth: judgment became final in 2007; petition filed 2015 is untimely and no pleaded/proven exception applies; transcript shows waiver of appellate/post-sentence rights | Court held petition untimely; Wilson failed to plead/prove any §9545 exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether counsel properly sought withdrawal under Turner/Finley | Wilson implied counsel ineffective in framing timeliness claim | Counsel: complied with Turner/Finley requirements; provided no-merit letter and notice to client | Court found counsel complied with Turner/Finley; allowed withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel withdrawal on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for PCRA counsel’s no-merit withdrawal procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedural requirements for withdrawal in post-conviction context)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Turner/Finley compliance and counsel’s duty to serve no-merit letter and notice)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional and exceptions must be pleaded/proved)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mental illness or psychological condition alone does not satisfy PCRA timeliness exceptions)