Commonwealth v. Chester
163 A.3d 470
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Sept. 2009 Chester pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver marijuana and received 3 years’ probation; after later convictions, his probation was revoked on July 19, 2011 and he was sentenced to 3–6 years, advised of 10‑day motion and 30‑day appeal rights.
- Chester’s counsel told him he would file reconsideration/appeal; counsel filed an untimely motion for reconsideration on Aug. 2, 2011; no timely direct appeal was filed.
- The trial judge signed a ‘‘disapprove’’ line on the motion form but no docket entry formally denying the motion appears; Chester did not file a direct appeal.
- On July 25, 2013 the Public Defender’s Office wrote to Chester saying the motion was deemed denied by operation of law and there were no grounds for appeal; Chester filed a pro se PCRA petition on Sept. 16, 2013.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition; on appeal the Superior Court found the PCRA filing was facially untimely but accepted Chester’s claim that counsel abandoned him, invoking the newly‑discovered‑fact timeliness exception and remanded for factfinding on whether Chester discovered counsel’s failure with due diligence and filed within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the PCRA petition time‑barred, and if so did Chester invoke a timeliness exception? | Chester: counsel abandoned me by not filing a direct appeal; I learned of that on July 25, 2013 and filed PCRA within 60 days. | Commonwealth: judgment was final Aug. 18, 2011; PCRA filed Sept. 16, 2013 is untimely and merits should not be reached. | Court: PCRA was facially untimely but Chester invoked §9545(b)(1)(ii) (newly discovered fact—counsel abandonment); remanded for factfinding on timeliness exception. |
| Did Chester waive appellate issues by failing to file Rule 1925(b) statement? | Chester: did not file but claims service of the 1925(b) order is not shown, so he may not have been required to file within 21 days. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: failure to file 1925(b) statement waives issues. | Court: cannot find waiver because docket lacks service date; decline to find waiver. |
| Does counsel’s inaction (failure to file appeal) qualify as a ‘‘newly‑discovered fact’’ under §9545(b)(1)(ii)? | Chester: discovery of counsel’s abandonment is a new fact that fits Bennett and was learned July 2013. | Commonwealth: may argue public records or other means could have alerted him earlier. | Court: abandonment can be a newly‑discovered fact per Bennett; issue requires PCRA court factfinding on whether Chester knew or could have discovered it sooner. |
| If exception is proven, what relief is required? | Chester: reinstate direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc and appoint new counsel. | Commonwealth: only if exception proven after factfinding. | Court: if PCRA court finds exception met, it must reinstate appeal rights nunc pro tunc and appoint new counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; judgment of sentence finality rule)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (counsel abandonment can be a newly‑discovered fact under §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Huddleston, 55 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2012) (application of Bennett to reinstate direct appeal rights)
- Commonwealth v. Duffy, 143 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appeal deadlines after probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249 (Pa. 2002) (docket/service requirements for Rule 1925(b) orders)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 867 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2005) (clerk must note service date of Rule 1925(b) order)