Commonwealth v. Ballance
203 A.3d 1027
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Joel Ballance pleaded guilty in March 2014 to multiple reduced burglary-related charges and was sentenced to an aggregate 10–20 years on May 21, 2014.
- Ballance filed a late post-sentence motion (one day late); the trial court heard and denied it, but did not grant nunc pro tunc relief for the late filing.
- Ballance filed a pro se notice of appeal July 15, 2014; counsel later filed an amended notice. The appeal was quashed as untimely by this Court on September 17, 2015.
- Ballance filed a pro se PCRA petition July 21, 2016; appointed counsel filed an amended PCRA petition asking restoration of direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc.
- The PCRA court granted restoration of direct-appeal rights on August 4, 2017. This Superior Court panel held the PCRA petition was untimely and therefore the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to grant nunc pro tunc relief; the Superior Court vacated that order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to restore Ballance’s direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc | Ballance argued the PCRA petition entitled the court to restore his right to appeal | Commonwealth argued the PCRA petition was untimely and no jurisdiction existed to grant nunc pro tunc relief | Held: PCRA petition was untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to restore appeal rights and the appeal was dismissed |
| Whether Ballance’s late post-sentence motion tolled the direct-appeal period | Ballance relied on the post-sentence filing and subsequent hearing to preserve appeal rights | Commonwealth argued untimely post-sentence motion did not toll the appeal period absent nunc pro tunc allowance | Held: Late post-sentence motion did not toll appeal period; judgment final June 20, 2014 |
| Whether Ballance satisfied PCRA timeliness exceptions | Ballance did not successfully invoke any statutory exception | Commonwealth asserted no exception was pleaded or proven | Held: No exception pleaded/proven; PCRA time bar applies |
| Whether Superior Court could review Ballance’s sentence merits after PCRA relief | Ballance sought merits review of sentencing errors after PCRA restoration | Commonwealth maintained court lacked jurisdiction because PCRA petition was untimely | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; must dismiss appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (separate notices of appeal required for separate docket numbers)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits cannot be disregarded)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no jurisdiction for untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264 (Pa. 2008) (one-year PCRA period begins when direct-review window expires)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (untimely PCRA may be raised sua sponte; late post-sentence motion does not alter finality)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (trial court lacks power to address untimely PCRA without exception)
- Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (resolution on merits of late post-sentence motion does not make it timely)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality-of-sentence claims still must meet PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (vacatur of nunc pro tunc relief where PCRA requirements control)