Commonwealth v. Yolk
138 A.3d 659
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Charles Volk was convicted by jury (2009) of terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person (REAP); two summary convictions were vacated on direct appeal. Sentenced to 2–4 years plus probation.
- Volk timely filed a pro se PCRA petition (2011); counsel was appointed, an amended petition and supplement were filed, and a two-day evidentiary PCRA hearing occurred (Nov 28, 2012 & Mar 13, 2013). The court allowed post-hearing briefing, which both sides filed by May 20, 2013.
- Volk was resentenced on a probation-violation in March 2014 and received credit that caused his sentence to expire around August 1, 2014.
- The PCRA court did not rule for ~21 months; on Feb 23, 2015 it issued a notice of intent to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Volk was no longer serving a sentence; the petition was dismissed March 25, 2015.
- Volk argued the §9543(a)(1) custody requirement is facially unconstitutional (due process, right to counsel, right to appeal) and alternatively unconstitutional as applied because the court’s delay caused him to lose eligibility despite timely filing.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) binding Supreme Court precedent forecloses Volk’s facial due-process challenge to §9543(a)(1), and (2) on the as-applied/delay claim Volk failed the Barker factors: he was not diligent and showed no actual prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §9543(a)(1) is facially unconstitutional for denying PCRA to those not serving a sentence | Volk: statute violates procedural/substantive due process, right to counsel, right to appeal | Commonwealth: statute legitimately limits collateral relief to those whose liberty is restrained; legislature may impose reasonable limits | Court: Rejected facial challenge; bound by Turner and Ahlborn holding no due-process right when sentence has expired |
| Whether §9543(a)(1) is unconstitutional as applied due to court delay causing loss of eligibility | Volk: timely filed petition; 21-month delay by PCRA court meant his sentence expired before adjudication => unconstitutional as applied | Commonwealth: petitioner must be serving sentence when relief is granted; delay alone doesn’t entitle relief absent diligence/prejudice | Court: Rejected as-applied claim; applied Barker test and found Volk not diligent and no actual prejudice |
| Whether the delay by the PCRA court excuses petitioner's duty to seek expedited relief | Volk: delay was court’s fault; he should not be penalized | Commonwealth: petitioner must act to protect rights (seek expedited consideration) | Court: Volk failed to move for expedited review or otherwise press the court; lack of diligence weighs against relief |
| Whether delay caused actual prejudice sufficient to grant relief | Volk: claimed after-discovered evidence undermining victim’s credibility | Commonwealth: trial record showed counsel explored victim’s competency and Volk made damaging admissions; earlier appeal rejected weight claim | Court: No actual prejudice shown; evidence and admissions made different outcome unlikely; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (statutory custody requirement bars PCRA relief when sentence expired)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA time limits balance finality and opportunity to challenge wrongful convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (no due-process right to collateral review when petitioner is no longer serving a sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (applies Barker delay-analysis to PCRA adjudicatory delay)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor test for assessing prejudice from delay)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 771 A.2d 721 (Pa. 2001) (legislature may place reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA denials)