Commonwealth v. Weatherill
24 A.3d 435
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Weatherill was convicted in 1990 of second and third degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, theft, receiving stolen property, and conspiracy.
- Crispell and Weatherill abducted Ella B. from a Clearfield County mall, robbed and killed her, and Weatherill fled with the victim's car.
- Weatherill gave statements in Arizona and Pennsylvania; trial admitted both statements against him.
- Sentenced to life for second degree murder and 10–20 years for kidnapping; sentence upheld on direct appeal.
- Weatherill filed a timely first PCRA petition in January 1997 under the 1995 amendments to the PCRA.
- Over a decade later, in 2007, Stacy Parks Miller sought to amend to add a new claim about jury instructions; the Commonwealth sought dismissal under §9543(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §9543(b) applies to delay between petitions | Weatherill—Ren chenski controls; amendment delay triggers prejudice. | Commonwealth—§9543(b) governs delays between original petition and amendments. | §9543(b) applies to amendment delays; prejudice shown. |
| Whether Weatherill abandoned his PCRA rights | Weatherill did not deliberately abandon; counsel inactivity and delay by others. | Weatherill abandoned by waiting years after counsel abandoned him. | Court found abandonment, justifying dismissal under §9543(b). |
| Whether substantial prejudice to Commonwealth justified dismissal | Commonwealth could rely on trial transcript and live witnesses; prejudice minimal. | Loss of files, unavailable witnesses, and time-barred memories create substantial prejudice. | Prejudice established; dismissal upheld to permit fair retrial. |
| Merger/double jeopardy issue not ripe; merger of second-degree murder and kidnapping | Issues for review; merger concerns. | Cruel to merge when underlying acts separate. | Sentences do not merge; no issue for this decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Renchenski, 607 Pa. 371, 6 A.3d 1287 (Pa. 2010) (extends §9543(b) to amendments; abandonment and prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 706 A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prejudice when new defense untested at first trial; cannot rely on admissible prior testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Fenati, 561 Pa. 106, 748 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness for first PCRA petition after amendments)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 600 Pa. 1, 963 A.2d 409 (Pa. 2009) (timeliness considerations under §9545 in first petition)