Commonwealth v. Walters
135 A.3d 589
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Jamel Walters pled guilty in October 2007 to drug offenses and was sentenced on December 11, 2007; he did not file a direct appeal, so his judgment of sentence became final January 25, 2008.
- Walters filed a first PCRA petition in June 2012 alleging judicial misconduct by Judge Mark Ciavarella (convicted of federal corruption); that petition was dismissed as untimely and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal, with the PA Supreme Court denying allocatur.
- Walters filed a second PCRA petition pro se on June 6, 2014, again asserting his sentence should be vacated due to Ciavarella’s misconduct.
- Appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter concluding the second petition was untimely and identifying no meritorious timeliness exception; counsel sought to withdraw and notified Walters of his rights.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition on March 9, 2015 as untimely; Walters appealed, counsel complied with Turner/Finley procedural requirements, and the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition is timely | Walters contends sentence should be vacated because Judge Ciavarella’s misconduct undermines his sentence | Commonwealth argues petition was filed more than one year after judgment became final and no timeliness exception was pled or proved | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a timeliness exception applies based on discovery of judge’s misconduct | Walters implies Ciavarella’s conviction is newly discovered fact excusing delay | Commonwealth notes Walters knew of sentencing and did not file within 60 days of when the claim could be raised; prior petition raised similar claims | No applicable timeliness exception proven; 60-day requirement not met |
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley to withdraw | Walters had counsel who filed no-merit letter; Walters did not respond | Counsel asserts she reviewed the record, explained lack of merit, provided required notices, and sought permission to withdraw | Counsel satisfied Turner/Finley; petition to withdraw granted |
| Whether the court retained jurisdiction to consider merits despite timeliness | Walters sought merits review of sentence validity | Commonwealth invokes jurisdictional bar of untimeliness under the PCRA | Court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; only timeliness considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counseled no‑merit withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for no‑merit letters)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary of Turner/Finley duties and court review)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 48 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; 60‑day filing rule for exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Turner/Finley procedure discussion)