Commonwealth v. Taylor
65 A.3d 462
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Taylor was convicted of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and persons not to possess a firearm after shooting his girlfriend; sentenced to 18–36 years and 1.5–3 years concurrent.
- Direct appeal was affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- During direct appeal, he filed a writ of habeas corpus treated as a PCRA petition; petition was dismissed but later rescinded when the direct appeal concluded, with permission to refile timely.
- After direct appeal, he filed another pro se habeas petition treated as PCRA; amended petition denied after a hearing; this Court affirmed.
- He filed multiple post-conviction motions; on December 7, 2011 he filed the instant petition, treated as a Rule 720 motion, which the court dismissed as untimely; appeal ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the writ was properly treated as a PCRA petition and timely | Taylor | Commonwealth | Untimely PCRA petition; court lacked jurisdiction on merits |
| Whether the sentence was illegal under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(c) as SBH was not proven | Taylor | Commonwealth | Sentence treated as PCRA issue; the record supported maximums based on SBH findings and related statute, but timing controls |
| Whether post-sentence claims asserting illegal sentence are cognizable under the PCRA after final judgment | Taylor | Commonwealth | Untimely post-sentence claims addressing illegal sentence are to be treated as PCRA petitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness governs PCRA petitions; illegal sentencing claims still fall under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Haun, 613 Pa. 97 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA remains sole avenue for post-conviction relief where available)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks I, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (post-sentencing motions raising PCRA-amenable issues treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks II, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (clarified treatment of bald discretionary sentencing claims under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discretionary aspects of sentencing treated as PCRA issues)