Commonwealth v. Swartzfager
59 A.3d 616
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Swartzfager pleaded guilty to attempted rape on Sept. 29, 1998 and was sentenced to 66 to 240 months on Nov. 23, 1998; judgment affirmed Oct. 11, 2000.
- Swartzfager did not seek Supreme Court review, so his judgment became final Nov. 10, 2000.
- He timely filed a pro se PCRA petition on Oct. 19, 2001, but counsel concluded it untimely and then withdrew; Rule 907 notice followed.
- No final disposition on the 2001 petition occurred; the case remained dormant after a 2003 quash of the appeal as interlocutory.
- Swartzfager filed another pro se PCRA petition on Dec. 29, 2011, which the court treated as an amendment to the 2001 petition; the court raised potential prejudice concerns to the Commonwealth.
- The Superior Court vacated and remanded to appoint new counsel and conduct a prejudice hearing relating to delay in the amended petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the 2001 PCRA petition | Swartzfager argues the 2001 petition was timely. | Commonwealth contends the 2001 petition was untimely on its face. | Timely, under finality rule and 30-day allowance period; remand for prejudice analysis. |
| Treatment of the 2011 petition as an amendment | Swartzfager's 2011 petition should be read as an amendment to the timely 2001 petition. | Commonwealth argues continued untimeliness or improper amendment. | Treat 2011 petition as an amendment to the timely 2001 petition; remand for prejudice assessment. |
| Need for a hearing on the amended petition's merits and prejudice | Amended petition warrants merits review and remedial relief if timely. | PCRA delay may prejudice Commonwealth; merits may be foreclosed if prejudice established. | Remand to appoint new counsel and hold a hearing to address prejudice and potential dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Renchenski, 52 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2012) (prejudice analysis for delay in filing under 9543(b))
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (timeliness and finality timelines under 9545(b)(3))
- Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489 (Pa. 2004) (amendments to timely petitions favored to achieve substantial justice)
- Commonwealth v. Kenney, 732 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1999) (remand when record insufficient for merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2003) (timeliness and exceptions under 9545(b))
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 828 A.2d 981 (Pa. 2003) (amendments to timely PCRA petitions and related proceedings)