Commonwealth v. Leggett
16 A.3d 1144
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Leggett was convicted in 1999 of robbery, conspiracy, attempted murder, aggravated and simple assault, and sentenced to 23–55 years.
- Direct review concluded with the 2000 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania deadline; judgment final in October 2000.
- Leggett filed multiple PCRA petitions (2001, 2004, 2008) with varying outcomes; the 2008 petition was dismissed in 2009.
- The current pro se PCRA petition was filed September 16, 2009 and dismissed as untimely.
- Pennsylvania law requires timely filing under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b) unless an exception applies; Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts was argued as such an exception.
- The court held the petition untimely and that Melendez-Diaz does not retroactively apply to collateral review, and thus the exception does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely filed | Leggett contends timely under 9545(b) due to Melendez-Diaz retroactivity. | Leggett's filing was nearly nine years late and facially untimely. | Untimely |
| Whether Melendez-Diaz creates a retroactive, after-recognized right for 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Melendez-Diaz establishes a new retroactive right. | Melendez-Diaz is not a new retroactive right; Crawford-based holding not retroactive on collateral review. | Not applicable; Melendez-Diaz not retroactive |
| Whether the 60-day retroactivity window was triggered by Melendez-Diaz | The 60-day period began when Melendez-Diaz became available in prison law library. | Ignorance of the law does not excuse untimely filing; window did not start then. | Not timely under 60-day window |
| Whether prison-libraries access can revive timeliness | Mailing date (Sept 13, 2009) should render timely under mailbox rule. | Prisoner ignorance of case law does not excuse delay; mailbox rule does not save untimely filing. | No revival of timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness strictly construed; jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness exceptions require proof)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super.2007) (after-recognized rights timing; 60-day rule)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 596 Pa. 104 (Pa. 2007) (interpretation of 9545(b)(1)(iii) and retroactivity)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (confrontation rights; not conclusively retroactive)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; anchor for Melendez-Diaz)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (Crawford not retroactive on collateral review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity framework for new rules)
- Briscoe v. Virginia, 130 S. Ct. 1316 (U.S. 2010) (retroactivity and changes in law for direct vs collateral review)