*1
Supreme of Pennsylvania. Court
4,May 2001. ORDER PER CURIAM: NOW,
AND day May, 2001, 4th the Petition for GRANTED, Appeal Allowance of considering limited to issue of whether a constitutional challenge to a sentencing implicates legality statute aof sentence. for Summary Petition Remand for Re Sentencing is
DENIED. Pennsylvania, Appellant,
COMMONWEALTH of HALL, Appellee. Luke Kane Supreme Pennsylvania. July
Submitted Decided *2 Baldwin,
Mark C. Iva Dougherty, Com., Appellant. C. C.J., FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, CAPPY, Before CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, JJ.
OPINION CASTILLE, Justice.
This Court review to determine whether criminal defendant who failed to file direct from his judgment of sentence and failed to timely thereafter avail himself of Post (PCRA), Conviction Relief Act 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq., attempt to secure restoration of his waived may appeal, direct obtain collateral in the relief form of reinstatement of his direct appeal rights tunc out requirements side the of the PCRA. Both trial court and held that such an extra-PCRA In proper. light plain language of the as well as *3 this Court’s jurisprudence PCRA culminating recently most Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 214, (1999), 558 Pa. holding plainly erroneous. The PCRA was available to appellee and it claims, is the exclusive vehicle for such as the raised, nunc pro appeal tunc claim he cognizable are under the PCRA.
Appellee Luke Kane Hall was charged arrested and possession (cocaine) aof controlled substance possession with intent to deliver a Appellee controlled substance. filed a evidence, motion suppress to the which was April denied. On 21, 1995, trial, waiving right after his to jury a appellee was of 30, 1995, convicted both On charges. the trial court appellee sentenced to to twenty-three nine imprison- months’ ment. Appellee did not file a appeal. direct later,
Twenty
30, 1997,
January
months
on
appellee
a petition
filed
for
claiming,
alia,
relief under the PCRA
inter
that trial
failing
counsel was
for
ineffective
to
a
file
direct
appeal.
petition
The
indisputably untimely
under the
November 1995 amendments to the PCRA. Under
those
amendments,
petitioner
a
of
whose
sentence became
16, 1996,
final before January
the effective date
the amend-
one
petition
year
within
had to file his
ments,
appellee,
such as
i.e.,
January 16, 1997. See
date,
than
later
of that effective
106-07,
Fenati,
206-
748 A.2d
561 Pa.
v.
Commonwealth
3(1)
Act
(2000)
of Nov.
(construing
the
32).
Pennsylvania courts
1),
No.
P.L.
No.
(Spec.Sess.
See,
petitions.
PCRA
untimely
jurisdiction to
lack
entertain
1, 5,
201, 203
753 A.2d
Murray,
e.g., Commonwealth
the
(2000).
properly
court
dismissed
Accordingly, the PCRA
dismissal, however,
a
included
sua
order
petition. The
to the
prejudice
“without
that it was entered
notation
sponte
Pro Tunc which
Appeal
to
a
Nunc
file Petition
Defendant
statutes,”
Act
Relief
the Post-Conviction
would be outside
petition.
days
file such
thirty
granted appellee
invitation,
thereupon filed
appellee
court’s
Accepting
tunc,
his
claim
renewing
PCRA
pro
nunc
petition
appeal
through trial
right
appeal
to a direct
his
that he was denied
petition
trial court
The
counsel’s ineffectiveness.
a direct
nunc
thirty days
to file
appellee
and awarded
Court,
Superior
appealed
thereafter
pro
Appellee
tunc.
in denying
suppres-
had
his
that the trial court
erred
claiming
arguing that
cross-appealed,
sion motion. The
granting
the court below erred
dismissing
petition
untimely.1
correctly
after
properly
trial
per-
held that the
court
Superior
Court
pursue
appeal rights
appellee
mitted
reinstatement
Al-
requirements
PCRA.
tunc outside
PCRA is
though
recognized
persons
means for
convicted
the exclusive
intended
*4
convictions,
the
collaterally attack their
and that
crimes to
policy
odds with
clear
of
trial court’s order was “at
the
PCRA,” it
in
proclaimed by
noted that dicta
exclusivity
in
v.
previous decisions
Commonwealth
Superior
Court’s
Petroski,
(Pa.Super.1997) and Commonwealth v.
The of scope the PCRA is explicitly defined Act as follows:
This subchapter provides for an persons action which they convicted crimes did not persons serving commit and illegal may sentences obtain collateral relief. The action subchapter established in this shall sole means obtaining encompasses collateral relief and all other statutory common law pur- remedies for the same pose subchapter effect, when exist takes includ- ing corpus habeas and coram subchapter nobis. This not intended limit availability remedies the trial court or on sentence, direct from the provide a raising means for in prior proceed- issues waived ings provide or to from relief collateral consequences of criminal conviction. added). (emphasis Pa.C.S. The plain language of
the statute quite clearly above demonstrates that the .General Our standard of review is whether the Court committed an Weston, 199, 8, error law. v. Commonwealth 561 Pa. 203 n. 749 A.2d 458, (2000). law, 460 n. 8 question scope As this case involves a our Nester, plenary. of review is Id. See also (1998). 709 A.2d granted, appellee's 3. After allocatur was counsel filed Petition to Appearance Withdraw appellee's deportation. of Counsel based on petition to withdraw was on Consequently, Appellee Brief for has been filed.
97 brought under that could that claims Assembly intended statuto- Act. No other brought under must be the PCRA is intended purpose” “for same remedy law ry or common instead, explicitly are “encom- available; such remedies to be within PCRA. passed” uniformly effect to this given and repeatedly has
This Court
the PCRA.
language contained
plain
interpreting
by
decisions
judicial
language,
own
By its
for
sole means
provides the
the PCRA
language,
such
9542;
Com
42 Pa.C.S.
relief.
obtaining state collateral
718,
549-50,
Ahlborn,
544,
699 A.2d
548 Pa.
monwealth v.
Where,
here,
post-conviction
(1997).
a defendant’s
721
PCRA,
common law
cognizable under
claims are
not
PCRA are
statutory
now subsumed
remedies
See Commonwealth
to the defendant.
separately available
(1998)
638,
547, 551-55,
A.2d
640-41
Peterkin,
722
554 Pa.
v.
cognizable
claims were
(concluding that because defendant’s
corpus was
statutory writ of habeas
under the
claims).
as to those
separately available
not
22,
12,
581,
Yarris,
A.2d
586
v.
557 Pa.
731
Commonwealth
375,
Chester,
358,
(1999).
v.
557 Pa.
See also Commonwealth
(PCRA
(1999)
1242,
all other
subsumes
A.2d
1250-51
corpus including habeas
rights and remedies
common law
PCRA;
therefore, claims
under
respect
offered
remedies
state habeas
on traditional
cognizable
have been
that would
PCRA).
exclusively under
corpus
must be considered
review
at issue
claim
particular
is whether
question then
here, i.e.,
request for a direct
appellee’s
failing
alleged ineffectiveness
counsel’s
premised on
himto
under the PCRA.
was available
appeal, is a claim that
Lantzy,
yes.
unquestionably
The answer
(1999) (“the
564,
222-23,
A.2d
569-70
post-conviction claims seek-
provides the exclusive
to counsel’s failure
rights due
ing
appellate
restoration
Chester,
Lantzy
Relying upon
appeal”).
a direct
perfect
“
that,
Assembly
that the General
‘it
clear
Court noted
seems
through requiring
all claims
review
to channel
intended
”
(quoting
at
Id.
736 A.2d
the PCRA.’
at
framework
Chester,
1251).
Pa.
733 A.2d at
A contrary
interpretation would
to “a
system
post-
lead
bifurcated
*6
review,
conviction
in which certain claims for relief are consid-
PCRA,
ered under
while other claims for relief are
considered outside its
framework.”
Pa.
Lantzy, 558
at
interpretation
In the resolution straightfor- here is ward. Appellee, like in Lantzy, sought the defendant restora- tion of appeal rights pro his direct nunc premised upon tunc his trial alleged counsel’s ineffectiveness. such a claim Since PCRA, cognizable under the as we held as a matter statutory interpretation in Lantzy, the trial court had no residual statutory common law or authority to entertain the claim except under the strictures of the PCRA. Appellee, in fact, invoked the but was denied review thereunder because, found, as the trial court petition untimely. was Having properly that finding, made the trial court had no invite, authority entertain, grant a request then for the very same authority relief deemed outside the of the PCRA.
Furthermore, we that upon note the lower courts’ reliance Stock, this Court’s decision in (1996), supporting a basis outside the tunc, appeal reinstate waived pro nunc misplaced. Stock was tried and convicted absentia summary of three traffic pay offenses and sentenced to separate three fines. Stock attorney appeal directed his summary conviction Pleas, to the Court of Common but the attorney failed to do so manner, in a timely quashal resulting in of the appeal. Reprer counsel, sought permission sented new Stock to file a summary appeal pro nunc tunc. argued ineffectiveness,
Stock to this his counsel’s conceded, which the Commonwealth grant warranted an appeal pro nunc tunc. This appeals Court noted that nunc exist, pro tunc in both contexts, civil and criminal extraordinary where state constitutional situations certain A.2d was at We denied.” Id. “right appeal requested appeal failure to file a was that counsel’s then held extraordinary Id. such an circumstance. summary in that approving
In
tunc
context,
deprived
we noted
such
defendant
offense
Id. This
“would have no other recourse.”
his direct
eligible for
so
was never
relief
because
defendant
he could not meet
the PCRA’s
under
PCRA because
impris-
he
“under
of death or
requirement
a sentence
probation.” Id.
parole
or on
or on
See
Pa.C.S.
onment
9543(2).
never
to such a
the PCRA was
available
Since
offender,
appellate relief was deemed
summary
right
appeal.
necessary
constitutional
to vindicate the state
*7
Here,
Stock,
to a term
appellee
in
sentenced
contrast to
thus,
and,
months
had
imprisonment
twenty-three
nine to
remedy
only appellee’s
a
to him.
It was
own
PCRA
available
one-year period of
failure to seek PCRA relief within the
limitations,
has
as constitution
period
upheld
a
that
reasonable,
Peterkin,
Pa. at
A.2d at 642
ally
see
554
722
Commonwealth,
(1879)),
Stock the a outside the framework of PCRA restore defendant’s summary traffic right appeal his conviction of offenses requested to file a where counsel the defendant failed short, in timely in a In our decision Stock fashion. applies only to rare instances where a defendant those not, was, eligible seeking tunc relief is and never to seek the PCRA because he could collateral relief under custody requirement. satisfy not the PCRA’s Pa. at 753 at n. 2. 6 n. A.2d Thus, jurisprudence, is our Stock consistent with PCRA the remedies recognizes which that PCRA subsumes other the only respect with remedies offered under PCRA. Since Stock, PCRA was ever available the defendant in resort to another avenue to important vindicate the constitu- tional right was both appropriate necessary. issue That decidedly is not.the case here. reasons,
For foregoing Superior Court’s order re- 2No. MAP specting (Superior 20Ó0 Court No. 3031 Philadel- 1997) reversed, phia the Common Pleas granting order vacated, leave to tunc is and that appeal is dismissed. respecting Court’s order No. 1 MAP 1997), (Superior Court No. 2791 Philadelphia affirming sentence, as moot. vacated
NIGRO, Justice, opinion. a concurring files NIGRO, Justice, concurring. agree
I majority that under the facts of the instant case, Appellant precluded obtaining from pur- PCRA relief suant to the one-year filing limitation. I separately, write however, I equity because believe that would required have result different had facts established Appellant rea- sonably good upon protect relied faith counsel to appel- his rights. late I acknowledge one-year
While purpose filing limitation is to finality prevent establish repetitive filing petitions, of meritless I also believe designed protect PCRA is reasonably defendant who good relies faith upon protect appellate counsel to rights, but counsel rights nevertheless allows those to be *8 I by forfeited. am prospect troubled that a defendant who, example, for instructed counsel to a direct appeal, file by filed, was told counsel that an appeal being was was subsequently filed, reassured counsel that the but found one-year later out period expired after limitation appeal, counsel never precluded filed is forever from receiving appellate at least one In my review his case. view, a rule that penalizes who reasonably defendant relies in good faith upon protect his counsel to appellate rights contrary purpose and such a defendant minimum, appellate one to, at a bare be entitled should review.1 Wife, Leonard, Appellants, Angela His and
Harold LEONARD Transporta- Pennsylvania, Department of COMMONWEALTH Company; tion; Perini, Corp.; and Son Peter Kiewit and and incorrectly Co., as Kiewit East- identified Eastern and Kiewit High Venture; Kiewit/Perini, A Joint Corporation and ern Company; and Inc.; Con- Structures, and Cornell Steel (CMC), Appellees. Coordination, Inc. Methods and struction Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Argued 2000. Dec.
Decided court, case, relief based the trial In the instant Although appeal. sought timely Appellant upon the fact public counsel and the Appellant told both his trial reveals that record Appellant appeal, evidence that to file an there after trial defender was, be, The record even would filed. an or was ever told that judgment twenty after his Appellant for months waited also reveals seeking pro tunc relief. I do not became final before of sentence more, telling appeal, an without merely to file counsel believe that laith, good basis reasonable Appellant had a establish that sufficient to rights appellate when protecting his counsel was conclude that twenty appeal for request an up on his Appellant to follow failed sentence. months after