Com. v. Yunik, J.
Com. v. Yunik, J. No. 1531 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 30, 2017Background
- In June 2000, Jay Val Yunik pled guilty to one count of rape and was sentenced to 54–180 months; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Yunik filed multiple PCRA petitions in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011; all were dismissed.
- In July 2016, through counsel, Yunik filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis alleging newly-discovered exculpatory forensic test results and a victim recantation letter, and contending counsel concealed this evidence which induced his guilty plea.
- The PCRA court construed the coram nobis petition as a PCRA petition, issued intent to dismiss, and dismissed on September 1, 2016, finding lack of jurisdiction because Yunik had completed his sentence and his claims were previously raised and untimely.
- Yunik appealed, arguing the court erred by treating his coram nobis petition as a PCRA petition and by denying relief because he no longer was serving a sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis petition must be treated as a PCRA petition when it raises claims cognizable under the PCRA | Yunik argued he was entitled to coram nobis relief despite completing his sentence because evidence was newly discovered and unavailable while incarcerated | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the PCRA is the exclusive remedy for claims the PCRA can address; petition must be treated as PCRA | Treated as PCRA petition; coram nobis unavailable when claim is cognizable under PCRA |
| Whether court had jurisdiction to consider the petition given PCRA time-bar | Yunik asserted the forensic report and recantation were newly discovered and untimely exception should apply | Commonwealth argued Yunik knew of the report and letter years earlier and had raised them in prior PCRA petitions, so the newly-discovered exception does not apply | Petition untimely; newly-discovered-facts exception not satisfied; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether completion of sentence renders petitioner ineligible for PCRA relief even if collateral consequences (e.g., SORNA) remain | Yunik argued coram nobis should provide relief because he no longer could obtain relief under the PCRA after release | Commonwealth argued PCRA excludes persons no longer serving a sentence from relief even if collateral consequences continue | PCRA relief unavailable to those not serving a sentence; coram nobis not allowed where PCRA is exclusive remedy |
| Whether prior litigation of same allegations bars the petition | Yunik implied the claims were not previously actionable while incarcerated | Commonwealth pointed to prior PCRA petitions (2005, 2006, 2011) that included the same forensic report and letter | Prior petitions contained same allegations; petition barred by res judicata/time-bar principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 864 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PCRA is exclusive remedy for claims it can address)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (collateral petitions raising PCRA-cognizable issues must be treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA time restrictions are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA excludes from collateral review those no longer serving a state sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PCRA relief denied where petitioner not serving sentence despite registration requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (when claim is cognizable under PCRA, PCRA is exclusive even if claim may lack merit)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussing Megan's Law registration requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 97 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressing registration/notification statutes)