180 A.3d 402
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Edgar B. Murphy, Jr. was convicted in 2007 of sexual offenses against his adult daughter and sentenced to 7–20 years.
- Direct appeals were exhausted and the judgment became final on July 28, 2009.
- Between 2009–2015 Murphy filed multiple PCRA petitions; all were denied.
- Murphy filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on August 4, 2016 (nearly seven years after finality) and the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice before denying the petition as untimely on March 9, 2017.
- Murphy appealed, raising numerous claims (ineffective assistance, due process, fraud, SORNA challenge), but the Commonwealth and courts treated the petition as facially untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- Murphy sought to invoke the PCRA timeliness exception for a new retroactive constitutional right based on Commonwealth v. Muniz (challenge to SORNA), but the court found he could not rely on Muniz to excuse untimeliness because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not yet held Muniz retroactive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Murphy argued on multiple grounds (ineffective assistance, due process, fraud) and suggested Muniz made SORNA unconstitutional, invoking a timeliness exception | Commonwealth maintained the petition was filed well beyond the one-year PCRA deadline and Murphy failed to prove any § 9545(b) exception | Petition is untimely; Murphy failed to prove applicability of any § 9545(b) exception, so dismissal affirmed |
| Applicability of § 9545(b)(1)(iii) (new constitutional right retroactive) based on Muniz | Murphy asserted Muniz rendered SORNA unconstitutional and therefore created a new retroactive right that would excuse timeliness | Commonwealth and court noted Muniz alone does not satisfy (iii) unless the Pa. Supreme Court has held Muniz retroactive and Murphy filed within 60 days of that holding | Muniz cannot be used to satisfy (iii) here because the Pa. Supreme Court had not yet held Muniz retroactive; exception not met |
| Requirement to file within 60 days of when exception could be raised (§ 9545(b)(2)) | Murphy argued Muniz-based claim entitled him to relief | Commonwealth argued Murphy did not timely file within 60 days of any triggering event | Court held Murphy did not comply with the 60-day requirement and thus failed to invoke the exception |
| Relief requests filed during appeal (multiple pro se motions) | Murphy filed at least 12 pro se motions seeking various extraordinary reliefs and Rule 123 relief | Court treated those motions as reiterations of the same undeveloped claims and not sufficient to establish timeliness exceptions | Motions denied; pending motions disposed and did not alter outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (jurisdictional nature of PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 592 Pa. 217, 923 A.2d 1169 (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (judgment of sentence finality timing under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 571 Pa. 219, 812 A.2d 497 (interpretation of § 9545(b)(1)(iii) requiring that a new right already be held retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (SORNA remedial holdings; court held SORNA registration provisions punitive)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera‑Figueroa, 174 A.3d 674 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discussing Muniz and retroactivity in collateral context)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 965 A.2d 299 (Pa. Super. 2008) (direct appeal decision referenced)