Commonwealth v. Williamson
21 A.3d 236
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Williamson was convicted by guilty plea to multiple sex offenses in 2004 and sentenced to 36 years and three months to 86 years in prison.
- Williamson filed a counseled PCRA petition in 2007 and a pro se PCRA petition the next day; the court treated them as his first PCRA petition and appointed counsel.
- The PCRA court held Williamson failed to comply with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d) witness certifications, denying an evidentiary hearing.
- Counsel sought to withdraw; Williamson was informed the PCRA petition would be dismissed for lack of genuine issues of material fact.
- Williamson's subsequent petitions and appeals involved alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to timely file a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
- Williamson learned in January 2009 that counsel’s untimely filing of the allowance petition had occurred and that he could pursue a second PCRA petition; he nonetheless did not file a timely petition within 60 days of that discovery, and his December 2009 amended petition was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the second PCRA petition | Williamson argues his second PCRA petition is timely under 9545(b)(1)(ii). | Commonwealth contends the petition is untimely and lacks a valid exception. | Untimely; no timely exception established. |
| Effect of counsel’s failure to timely file an appeal | Williamson asserts counsel’s failure to timely file the allowance petition constitutes a new fact under 9545(b)(1)(ii). | Commonwealth argues the facts did not meet the due-diligence requirement and the 60-day rule. | Counsel’s failure to file timely is not timely under 9545(b)(2); Bennett-like analysis applied; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (2007) (counsel’s failure to file timely petition can be a newly discovered fact for 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70, 753 A.2d 780 (2000) (newly discovered facts exception to 9545(b)(1)(ii) analysis; not available for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 596 Pa. 354, 943 A.2d 264 (2008) (no equitable exceptions to jurisdictional time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157 (2003) (no equitable tolling to override jurisdictional time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Geer, 936 A.2d 1075 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness requires proof of unknown facts and due diligence under 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 2007) (one-year time bar governs; untimeliness analysis governs jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 574 Pa. 724, 833 A.2d 719 (2003) (jurisdictional timeliness framework for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (illustrates untimely petition dismissal when no exceptions apply)