Commonwealth v. Lewis
63 A.3d 1274
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Lewis pleaded guilty in 2005 to murder and related offenses, receiving life imprisonment without parole for the murder and concurrent terms for other crimes.
- He did not file a direct appeal; later pursued a PCRA petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea and reinstate direct appellate rights, resulting in reinstatement of appellate rights nunc pro tunc.
- Lewis filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2009, which was dismissed in 2010 after counsel filed a no-merit letter; this court affirmed in 2011 and the Supreme Court denied review in 2012.
- On April 2, 2012, Lewis filed a second PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel and other deficiencies, plus a Lafler-based claim in a supplemental petition.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely on June 19, 2012; Lewis appealed challenging timeliness and due process arguments.
- The court held the second PCRA petition facially untimely and no timely statutory exception applied; arguments tying tolling or Lafler to retroactive rights were rejected or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the second PCRA petition timely? | Lewis argues timeliness tolled by first petition and Lafler-based rights. | Commonwealth contends no timely exception applies and petition is untimely. | Untimely; no applicable exception established. |
| Was Lewis' tolling argument properly raised or waived on appeal? | Lewis preserved tolling argument via first petition. | Waived because not raised below and not developed on appeal. | Waived; also meritless even if considered. |
| Does Lafler v. Cooper create a timely-exception or retroactive right to excuse the untimeliness? | Lafler-based rights create a new retroactive exception to timing. | Lafler does not fit the timely-exception framework for a plea-based claim here. | Lafler does not excuse timeliness in this context; no retroactivity necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA timeliness not subject to equitable tolling except as expressly provided)
- Commonwealth v. Rienzi, 573 Pa. 503 (Pa. 2003) (timeliness rules apply strictly outside enumerated exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 586 Pa. 468 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA petitions untimely where court lacks jurisdiction)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (ineffective assistance during plea negotiations; timing framework distinguished)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (U.S. 2007) (no federal-equitable tolling applicable to state PCRA timing)