Commonwealth v. Jackson
30 A.3d 516
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Jackson pled guilty in 1981 to burglary, criminal trespass, theft, and receiving stolen property; sentenced to 20 years' probation in 1982.
- In 1988, probation violation led to revocation and a 2-to-20-year sentence to be served consecutively, with appeal affirmed.
- Between 1989 and 2004 Jackson filed four PCRA petitions, all denied.
- On May 20, 2010 Jackson filed a motion to correct illegal sentence challenging the 1988 sentence as illegal for lacking authority to supervise probation; the PCRA court treated it as a PCRA petition.
- PCRA court notified its untimeliness on September 9, 2010 and dismissed the fifth petition on October 26, 2010.
- Jackson appealed, arguing the PCRA court had authority to entertain his motion under its inherent jurisdiction to correct patent sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court had authority to entertain Jackson's motion to correct illegal sentence despite untimeliness. | Jackson relies on Holmes II to claim inherent jurisdiction to correct patent errors. | Commonwealth argues PCRA timing bars review; inherent jurisdiction cannot override §9545. | PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition; no applicable inherent authority under §9545. |
| Whether there was an obvious illegality in the 1988 sentence that would trigger inherent correction power. | Jackson contends lack of specified supervising authority constitutes illegality. | Probation order specified county supervision; no illegality. | No illegality in the sentence; inherent jurisdiction not triggered. |
| Whether Holmes II allows a PCRA court to use inherent jurisdiction to correct order after expiration of §9545 deadlines. | Inherent power could exist beyond 5505 when obvious errors occur. | Holmes II limits inherent power and §9545 governs review; cannot bypass filing deadline. | Holmes II creates a narrow exception but does not permit extending relief beyond §9545; petition untimely and cannot be reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 593 Pa. 601, 933 A.2d 57 (2007) (Holmes II; limits on inherent jurisdiction to correct patent sentencing errors; §5505 vs. §9545.)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 437 Pa. 288, 263 A.2d 339 (1970) (Inherent power to amend patent errors in judgments; foundational for exception.)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214 (1999) (PCRA time-bar is jurisdictional; strict deadline applies.)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (2008) (Untimely PCRA petitions are without jurisdiction to reach merits.)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 803 A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2002) (2002) (Untimely PCRA petition treated as PCRA petition; time bar applies.)
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782, 784-85 (Pa. Super. 2008) (2008) (Strict interpretation of §9545 timeliness; no equitable exceptions.)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 548 Pa. 544, 699 A.2d 718 (1997) (PCRA scope and remedies; limits on non-PCRA remedy.)
- Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502, 503 (Pa. Super. 2000) (2000) (Treats late petitions as PCRA petitions; preserves §9545 timing.)
- Commonwealth v. Whitfield, 833 A.2d 1152, (Pa. Super. 2003) (2003) (Holmes I/Whitfield preparation discussed in Holmes II.)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 837 A.2d 501, 59 (Pa. Super. 2003) (2003) (Holmes I; propriety of inherent correction for parole/probation orders.)