Commonwealth v. Doty
48 A.3d 451
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Doty appeals from August 3, 2011 PCRA dismissal; counsel seeks withdrawal and we grant; petition denied on timeliness grounds.
- Jury found Doty and co-defendants guilty of conspiracy and aggravated assault on Jan. 20, 2009; Doty sentenced in absentia to 66–136 months plus 48–96 months consecutive and $1.5M restitution.
- Doty failed to appear for sentencing; bench warrant issued; post-sentence motions filed by counsel; direct appeal proceedings ensued with counsel filing a notice of appeal.
- Appellant remained a fugitive during the appeal period; Superior Court quashed the direct appeal for forfeiture of appellate rights due to fugitive status.
- PCRA court relied on Doty to find untimeliness; Doty held fugitive status forfeits direct review but did not render a direct appeal a nullity; this opinion reconsiders timeliness and reaches ineligibility for collateral relief.
- Court ultimately affirms dismissal on alternate grounds, concluding Doty-fugitive status does not render claims timely but Appellant is ineligible for collateral relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petition was timely under 42 Pa.C.S. §9545 | Doty: timely due to post-sentence motion/timing; finality based on direct-review timing | PCRA court: finality and Doty-based forfeiture render petition untimely | Petition timely; finality determined differently; remits to merits review on other grounds |
| Effect of fugitive status on collateral review | Fugitive forfeits direct review rights but not eligibility for PCRA relief | Fugitive status triggers forfeiture of direct appeal; grounds for untimeliness | Fugitive status forfeits direct appeal but does not by itself preclude collateral review; nonetheless, claims may be ineligible for relief on other grounds |
| Whether counsel withdrawal complied with Turner/Finley and Wrecks requirements | Turner/Finley compliant; no-merit brief supports withdrawal | Counsel properly reviewed case and provided notice; court can withdraw | Counsel withdrawal properly granted; proper no-merit review conducted},{ |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 997 A.2d 1184 (Pa.Super.2010) (fugitive forfeits direct appeal rights; direct review timing impacted finality for PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Judge, 797 A.2d 250 (Pa.2002) (fugitive status affects collateral relief eligibility; resurrecting issues not allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264 (Pa.2008) (timeliness under Brown where no timely direct appeal affects PCRA clock)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa.Super.2007) (procedural withdrawal standards for Turner/Finley)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 795 (Pa.Super.2008) (requirements for withdrawal of counsel in PCRA)
- Brown v. Brown, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super.1988) (Turner/Finley framework and no-merit briefing)