Commonwealth v. Turner
73 A.3d 1283
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Kathi Turner was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sex offenses against her boyfriend’s 11-year-old daughter and sentenced to 5–10 years’ imprisonment on September 29, 2009.
- Post-sentence, Turner raised several claims; the trial court reduced the grading of one count but denied other relief on January 20, 2010; an appeal was filed but dismissed on July 9, 2010 for failure to file a brief.
- Turner timely filed a PCRA petition on March 8, 2011; the PCRA court reinstated her direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc on July 26, 2011, but she did not file a direct appeal then.
- The court later (April 24, 2012) again reinstated her direct-appeal rights following a petition filed April 18, 2012; Turner filed a notice of appeal on May 17, 2012.
- On appeal Turner argued the trial court violated the coordinate-jurisdiction rule by allowing trial to proceed without resolving her motion to appoint a special investigator/expert that another judge had put at issue.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the issue was waived because Turner failed to raise the matter before or during trial and Judge Quigley did not actually overrule Judge Morrow’s rule to show cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial judge violated coordinate-jurisdiction rule by trying case without ruling on motion for special investigator/expert | Turner: Judge Quigley effectively overruled Judge Morrow’s rule to show cause by proceeding to trial without ruling | Commonwealth/Trial court: Quigley never ruled or overruled Morrow’s order; Turner failed to raise/preserve the issue before or during trial | Issue waived; no coordinate-jurisdiction violation because no overruling occurred and Turner sat on her rights |
| Whether appeal was timely given PCRA proceedings and multiple nunc pro tunc restorations | Turner: appellate filing following April 2012 reinstatement was timely | Commonwealth: appeal should be dismissed as untimely | Court: April 18 petition treated as restarting PCRA timeliness; April 24 reinstatement made May 17 appeal timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no equitable exception to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA one-year filing rule)
- Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reinstatement of direct-appeal rights in first PCRA petition restarts timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 718 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 1998) (same principle regarding reinstated rights)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2012) (coordinate-jurisdiction rule explained)
- Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (policy behind coordinate-jurisdiction rule)
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 60 A.3d 156 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate court may affirm on any correct basis)