·chapte~ 4.1

Pennsylvania ..

'• . I

§ 41:1 §41:2

Summary of postconviction remedies ~. i:>ennsylvania Pennsylvaiµa. PC?st Co~vi~tioµ Relie~ Act W?-der 42 Pa. ". Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546 ·. . .. ~

-Text of§ 954f _,. l•

-§9542~~.of§9542 ... , .. ,;. --Case law , , i • ,.

§ 41:3 §41:4 §41:5 §41:6 §41:7 §41:8 §41:9 § 41:10

-r§ 9543~Custody requirement , ... - -Grounds for relief - -· . . . , . . . i ·;

··- ·' -

§ 41:11 § 41:12 § 41:13 § 41:14 § 41:15 § 41:16 § 41:17

§ 41:18 § 41:19 § 41:20 § 41:21 § 41:22 § 41:23 § 41:24 § 41:25 § 41:26 § 41:27 § 41:28 § 41:29 § 41:30 § 41:31 § 41:32 § 41:33 § 41:34 § 41:35

---Newly discovered evidence .. - -§ 9543(c)-Grounds for reli~(-Unique ground - -:-Statute Q( limit~ti~ns_-::~e)Vly discovere(

evidence claims based. on DNA testing . . . . . .. --Laches · -~Text of§' 9,54~- . -. ... :• ,' .> , .· · - -Burden of Proof-Case law . - -Ineffective assistance of counsel-Case law - --:--Laches-Case Jaw · - -Custody requirement-Ca8e law' . . I • • .

- -Groun«;Is fo:r. r(\!µef--:--Newly cliscovere4. evidence-Case law ' ; · ' · · · ·· · ·_' . "

-Text of§ 9543.1 ;! .\ ·.: · •

-§ 9544-Text of§ 9544 . - -Issues litigated or waived-Case faw ·•· -§ 9545--'.statute hf lfurltations · · · ·

1

- - -Prison mailbox rule ;.

- - ~utjsclictional requirement. --Filing " ., .. ( \ . - -Discovery - -Evidentiary hearing - .-:.:stay 'of execution . - -Text of§ 9.545 - -Statute or'limitations....:case law. : · ~. . ; .·:: - -Jurisdiction-Case law · · - -Hearings-Case law ~ . ... . . :

1

--;-::-§ ~~~6-4pp~als . r.: . ;

· :- ,.. --:-Death ~entence ·,cases . _·_~Filing .ui no~c~pital .c~s~ : ; ·~ - -Text of§ 9546

595

STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 41:36 - -Case law § 41:37 -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 900-

Text § 41:38 - -Case law § 41:39 -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 90t­

Text § 41:40

§ 41:41 - § 41:42

§ 41:43 § 41:44

§ 41:45

§ 41:46 § 41:47 § 41:48

§ 41:49

§ 41:50 § 41:51 § 41:52

§ 4~:53

§ 41:54 § 41:55 § 41:56

§ 41:57 I§ 41:58

§ 41:59 § 41:60

§ 41:61

§ 41:62 § 41:63 § 41:64

§ 41:65

·5ss

-Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure· 902-Text

·--Case· law :-Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Proc.edure 903-

Postsentencing phase of original criminal case · ---Text . -Pennsylvania Rule of Crimin.8.1. Procedure 904-

Right to counsel · ·; - -Right to effective assistance of postConviction

counsel _ ' · . ---Text - -Right to counsel_..;.Case law - -Right to effective ~ssistance of postconvfotion

counsel-Case law · ' · -Pennsyl~ania Rule of Criminal Procedure 905-

Filing-Leave to amend or withdraw petition - -Text of rule --Case law -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 906-

Text of rule · · -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907-

Summary disposition --Text - -Case la~ , . . -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Pracedure 908-.-

Text " " --Case law -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 909-

Text -

~-Case law , -Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal ·Procedure' 9iO-Text .; .· - . I( .•

( : . :\; .-........ Writ of habeas corous under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.

§§ 6501 to 6505 . ' . -Filing -Postconviction relief . Judicial review of certain orders and ·decisions of the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and ;Parole under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 763(a) · · ·

-Case law

. •,

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:1

§ 41:66

§41:67

§ 41:68

§ 41:69 §'41:70

§ 41:71 . f41:72

Judicial review of certain orders and decisions of the · Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole -or · · . prison officials under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § .761~Case law regarding 9riginal jurisdiction of _the , commonwealth court .. .

Judicial review .of certain orders and decisions of the Pennsylvania J)epartment of GoJ:"I'ections. ,unde~ 42 · ·

· Pa. Cons. Stat.~ § 763(a) . · ' , · · · Writ of erro;r cofam nQ}?is~No 'ionger recoglliz~d~ Enactment of PCRA · · · · · · · · ~ - -Cas~ law . . . Postc9nviction·.DNA testili.g stattite un4er4~ P.a ..

Cons. Stat.§ 9543.1' , · ·1

-Case law · · · .,

Erroneous Con~ction~ -~ct · · .~ ;, ',

'·

•• t

KeyCite®: Cases and othe~ legal materials listed in ~yCite Sc~pe can be researched through the KeyCite service· on Westlaw®. 'Use KeyCite to' checlt .citations for form, parallel references, prior and later history,. and comprehen­sive citator information, including citations to other decisions and secondary materials. · .. ~ · '. ~. · · · · · · · · ..

§ 41:1 Summary of postconviction remedies in Penp.sylvania

Principal postconviction ~em,edy: . . . . , : · · , . . . : · Pennsylvania Po~t Qonviction ~elief Ac.t. remedy unqe,r . 4:~. Pa.

Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 9541 to 9546. This. rexp.edy is applied {o~ in the convicting court. The remedy is a postsentencing phase of the original criminal case, not an independent civil action. The PCRA is not a. part of the direct criminal proceeding. The remedy is au­thorized by statute. There is a custody requirement applicable to the remedy. Newly ~scov~red. e~dence of innocence is a gro,und for relief under the remedy. .

Right to counsel: ! ~

There is a right to counsel in Pennsylvania J;>CR4 proceecUngs. Furthermore, a petitioner for PCRA relief is entitled to the .. effec-tive. assistance of postconviction counsel. .

' * : • ,- ·l ••

Statute of limitations: : 'Any'. PCRA I petition, including a: second of:subsequent 'petition, shall be filed within. one year of- the· 'date the judgment 'become~ final, unless the petition alleges and· tlie petitioner proves that: U) the failure ·to raise the claim previously was the result ·of interference by government officials (which· shall not include

597

§ .41:1 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES ANi> .RELIEF

defense counsel; whether ,appointed or retained} with the presen~ tation of the· claim>in; violation. of the Constitution or.laws of this commonweB.lth o·r;,th.e Constitution or: laws· ·of the United States; (2) the facts upon which the claim is··predicated were 'unknown to the petitioner and ~ould not have been. ascertained· by the ex~rcise of due diligence;' or· (3) the right asserted. is. a 'cohstitri:tibnal right that was recognized by the U.S. 'Supfeme·coµrt or the ·Pennsylva­nia Supreme .q~¢. after tlie c;me yeB;r. ti~e petjod· provided anq has b~en held 'by that' court to apply retro~~ti:vely;, any petition invoking one of these three exceptions shal.l be. 'file~: 'Yithin ~;o days of the d~te .the ~laim: could. have been .prese11;~ed; and for purposes of the limitations ·period, a ju4gment be~qpi~s final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretioP:~ revi~w in the U.S. Supreme Court and th~, ·P~nnsylv~nia ~up,eme Cou1', or at the expiration of time for seeking .the review.· Moreover, if the PCRA petition: raises a claim of newly discovered evidence of iJlnocence that ·1s ba~ed on DN~ tes~ing con,ductinp· under· the state~s. pos~p<>nViction PN~ testb~g st~iute, . the coiiYi,cte·d p~rson may" duri·ng the 60·day period beginning· on the date 1 on which the' convicted person is notified of the· test 'resl.ilts;- file his PCM petition raising the newly di~.covered evidence claim._· · ·

Secondary ~o~~~o~vi;~~iq~. ~e.~edi~~: . , Habea~ corpus . . . Judicial review of certain orders and decisions of the Pennsy~­

vania Board of Probation and Parole= · · · . · · , ... '· · · · · · ' .. · ' · . Judicial)·reView·af·certain order~ and decisfons of the ·Pennsyl-vania Department 1of Corrections . · · · : · · -i ;. 1 ' .• · •• " ·

• I • : •• I.. • --. . I - ' • : : - j _i • ~ ~... i . .

Other remedies: : '. · · . ,~ , Co~am ·no bis .is no· longer·· ail a'Vail'a~le · po~~cmnviCtion remedy in

PennsylVania.~ · · · · ·. · · •. ~·~

.,Pennsylvania has a" postconvictio'1 ·DNA testing: statute~ enacted in 2002. · · :· · · · · ·

Pennsylvania does not have an erroneous conv.ictiops ~qt ... '. . .1

Helpful readl.igs: . . . ·. ,: . · . · · · 1-~.: 1 · "

I ' • ', ( : ' I ' ' J ' .' ' • I ~ ' • ~ • • ' r • ' •

(1) Place,' Ineffective Assista11¢e of. Cou11se~ Uncler the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act,· 69 Temp. L. Rev. 1389 (1996) . . . ... '. . .:~.

. (~) : Rep~titive,. ;P,o~~-.Cc;>.nvi~.t.ion .. ~et~t~on~. AII'~~ng lneff ecti~e A$sj$tan~~. of. J1oµnsfli: : 9~n the PennsylW.~p.~~.1 ~upr~µie,. Q9u,r~ 'E~me.the)~:Ion~~r?,,.2Q 0,µqLL~ Rev., 237 (1~8~). ·;• r -_ .• ;_: '.1 I . 1:

·, (3) D.oty, Purposes: and .Application of the· Pennsylvania·· Post Conviction.Hearing.:Aot,-.45 Pa. •. B. Q •. 480 (1974) r: • •· . ·

598

PENNSYLVANIA . ' .. . ; §:41:1

· · (4)· Young, Postconyictioii Relief-in Pennsylvania, 74 Dick .. 'L. Rev. 703 (1970)

: (5) Gre1en, Haoeas Corpus and the i966· PostconVictiori Hearing Act: Major Pennsylvania Remedies in Cnminal· Cases; 39· -Temp·. L:Q~ 188. (1966}: .; ... · - __ ... ~.· ..:.-.> .r.·., . ._.

( 6) Comment: The Discretion of a Trial Judge ili:.Penrtsylvaru.a· to Modify a Criminal Sentence After Its Partial Execution, 75 Dick.' h.JR.ev~:~448 (1971)• : ._;.,n;: ·. " .:: .. .' .. ; ·' :::: ... · , : ~- '.. · .. ~·

(7) Note: Habeas Corpus m?Pemisylvania1 • .After ·bonvfotion, 20

U. Pitt. L,.Rev. 652· (1~59) :· [· ·t. . ;•, , . • . i, . (8) Note: Scope 0£-Review of· Habeas J Corpus, 53· :Dick. L. Rev.

290 (H~49) , .. . : · . .. · J ,. . • ; .. · "' • ,. • :

r': (9) Diggins;:~oram· Nobis in"'Pennsy1Variia,. '33 Temp/L .. :Q>l (1959) .: i: .. : -: ~> :. .- .·: '. · 't :.; .. ;'.. ' ; ._· .. 'r; .>'~

(lO) ·Wile, An··overView· 'of .the Parcile.'.Revocatib~ P~9ces~·.J~ Pennsylvania, 92 Dick. L. Rev. 1 (1987) ., ._. · · · '· d1) Place; Recent Devefopnients·hi.Post~-con.Victioh. Relie("74

· l , · . , - · c·-· ·· • - ' ' _· .I • Pa. RA. Q.'78 (Apr .. 2003) . ; '. 11 .".,- .. r-; (. ·' . J ' . :. ,: •

' : · • i · · ~· · • .~ • • ' · · · ' .. · · • ' . ' • \. l · · : - , ' · ... :~ · .< 12) H~rr:~s·,. ~ieve~, )~nd · PIEice; pis pate~ ~p.d .p·elay: Post-Conviction 'Relief Act ·Litig'ati4'i1.. ir(Non-Ca'.pital Cases~· 4I Duq. ·:L. Rev .. 467· (2003) " : · · "· · . · · : : ... ! • • ~ ~- · · •

.. (13), :tfatalj, N~w.~ars in.Pe~nsylvan_i~ qa~it~i i>~,st~Cq~Yi~t~on La,:w .~nd Their Implicatiqn~ Jor. Federal, :Habea;s

1 Corp.it$ ~eView,

73 Temple·L. Rev.'69 (2000f · .. · ', · · .· . · · · .. · .. '.' 1 '.

1 .•

· (14)' Pla~_e, .T,~e .ct~inl"Is.·~o·agn,ii~hl~. B:~i ~e' Petition. 1~ Untiriie~y:. Xh(P,enq$ylvanja1S-q.prei;D.e . co:l,lJ"t's Rece~t :.Colla~erSI Relief.Pecisions; 1~ Temp.~Pol ... &~Ciy.,R~.·i,. R~v .. 49 c2opo) · -

, ~ • -' , r ' , \, ' , , • - • • • , ' ; • I :._ . 0 ' I t ...:. ! , •: . ' . , I • ;

.· -~~ey?, ~o~~Q..t, T)le .Co~pe.:1:1sat~o.ii~·of ,Er,ro.;q.~ously .Co,~yip~~d ~11-.~~~ual~ .1~: ~ep.p.syll{@Ja, 4~ J?:uq.. L. ;Rev. 4~9 (209p) . ; . . :

·(16) J. Andrew Salemme, Guilty Until Prov~n')nnocent; .A ;l?rac.t}~i~n~r's ·a,n<;l: J:udg.~'s. ,q,µide \to th~. }~~A~sy~v.~nia Post-CoriVictiori. Relief ACt'(2Ql4)' .:i ,· · . .. . . . : : ..

': .<11fj~ia~~' Post C9nvictio~ De~~lQPill~~ls,. ~~ P.a.)~:.A.: Q.· 6'1 (Apz:. i2(>1~). ·'.1 ,. . · . , .. ~~· ·/ ·; :.': . -: " · . . . · ·

· (18); J. ·Andrew .Salemm~, Guilt:v.-Until~·Proven! Inho.cent:·.A Practitfoner~s. and Judge's Guide. to. the, Pen'ilsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act 1(PCRA) (2013):. . . , 1 , 1 : • . :

.; (19) ,~Recent .. necisfon, Commonwealth· May lnv.oluntatily Administer.Antipsychotic ·Medication-to Inmates to. Render·Them Competent to Barticipate-'in Post Conviction Relief·Act Rroceed~ ings: Commonwealth v. Sam, 1 Duq. Crim. L.J. 11;·(2009) · ,, ,-·~

· (20)· Place, Post~Conviction1 Developments,· 85 ;Pa~ B.A: Q. · 117 (July 20.14) : ;.: · .• ,J :• . : . .i:·.·· :-. . • :

599

§ 41:1 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(21) •Litman, .Offi~iating Removal, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 33 (2015) ! ; .

.(22). Place,, Post. C<>nviction Developments in Pennsylvania, 87 Pa •. B .. AQ. 32 (Jan.!2oia>.

(23) Martin, Habeas Corpus in Pennsylvania· ;Today, 87 Pa. B.~ Q. 83 (1\p,r. 2Q16) . . . . . . § 41:2 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act ·lJDd~r 42 . . .. Pa. Cons. Stat.§§ 95~1.to 9546

' 1 ', .' • ' . • • 4 ~ • • • ' • ' • ' • • ! .

The principal postconviction remedy·in' Pennsylvania is the remedy authorized by :the Pennsylvania· Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), which was originally enacted by the Act of April·l3, 1988, ch. ;4 7, § 3, 1988 Pa. Laws 336, 337. to :43. The Pennsylva.nia PCRA became effective on the day it was signed, April 13, 1988. See Act of April 13, 1,988, ch. 4 7 §§ 6, 9(2), 1988 Pa., Laws 336, 342 to 43. · . Since 1988~ the .. Pe~nsyl'vani~ PCRA has .been .am~Il;ded, four times. The 1995 amendment, which, among other things, engrafted a statute of limitations onto the PCRA, took effect on Jah:'l6, ·i996 ·and applies to. postconviction p~titioµs filed on or after Jan. 16, '19'96. The 2002 amendment enacted the state's postconviction DNA testing statute. · · As furie~de'd,': the Pennsylvania J'CRA is codified in Sub~hapter

B ("Post. ConVictiOii. Relief') of Chapt~r . 95 ePost-Trial Matters") of Part 8 ("Criminal Proceedings") of Title· 42 ("JudiCiary and Judicial Proced'1re") of the Pennsylvania· Consolidated Statutes Annotated (42 Pa. c·ons. Stat. Ann. § 954i throug~ § 9546). ·; · '

The ·Pennsylvania PCRA is· procedurally implemented by Cnapter 9 .("Post-Conviction Collateral Proceedings") of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 900 through 910, Pa. R. Crim. ·Proc.). · ·' · , 'Sonia ·provisions of the Pen~sylvania PCRA extend :only to death sentence cases. Generally, however, the PCRA applies to both death sentence 'and noncapital ·cases. 42 Pa. Co~s. Stat. Ann. § 9542 (except as specifically provided otherwise; all provi~ sions of the PCRA' shall apply to capital .and noncapital cases); Rule 900~ Pa. ·R. Crim. Proc. (criminal procedure rules implement.:. ing PCRA apply to capital and noncapital postconviction cases). ·

The.Pennsylvania PCRA is."the sole means,of:obtaining collat­eral relief and encompasses all. other. common law and statutory remedies,:including habeas corpus and· coram nobis." 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § '9542. ·

The PCRA, pr~vides a mechanism for. vindicating existing constitutional rights, and it also provides a mechanism for

600

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:4

implementing new .constitutional rules. of retroactive application, no matter when the new rule is established.· Com. v. Fears, 624 Pa. 446,, 86 A.3d 795 (2014). . . . On its face, the Pennsylvania _PCRA i~, _for a number of reasons, one. of the most restrictive and narrow of all the modern state postconviction r~niedies.· For exarilple,.1t states that, it' is limited to "persons cqnvicted of' crimee they, did n~t commi~. and pe;rsons serving illegal sentenc~s" ( 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9.542); it requires that' the petitiQner'.be .. ~n custody "at . .the time· -relief is granted" :(42 :pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543(a)(l)) instead of (as in most states with a custody rf3quirement) at the ~ime relief is ap .. plied· for; it ~andates th~t a· violation of constitutional. rights; to be .a basis for relief, .niusf hav·e "s.o. hnder~ined th.e truth7 d~termining process that no r~lia~~e ·adjudication of gµilt ~r in­nocence could have taken pla_cew (42 .Pa.·.Cons. Stat. ~nn. §:9543(a)(2)(I)); and i,t.allows i:~lh~f for an.unlawfully indµced guilty plea only ''where the circ~stances · ~ake it li~ely that the i~,rl:ucement ~~used. the petitiQnei: to, plead .. g:\1ilty an:d t the petitioner is 'inriocent" (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann'.. §. 9543(a)(2)(iri)). • . ·' \ \ . \ , .. I . - •: .

. . . ~ i . t . ~ • • : •

§ 4.1:3 PennsyJvania Post· Convictiqn ·Relief Act under 42 .Pa. Cons. Stat.§§ 9541. to.9~•f>-Text'" off§ 9541.

I • '·. ' • I ' •• ' ·' ··, : I

The Pennsylvania Post Conviction. Relief Act ·provides:. §· 9541. Short title ·of ~ubchapter

This subchapter shall be ~own and may be cited as the Post Conviction 'Relief Act. · · ·; · · ' , ·. · · · · : · ·

{·,,

§ ·41':4 Pennsylvania Post ·Conviction 'Relief Act under 42 · Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 .. to 954f>-§ 9542~Text of

·.§9542 ' ' § 9542. Scope of subchapter· · · · · · · · · ., '

1This subchapter provides for'_an action by which pers'ops c9nvicted of·crimes· th~y <;lid not ~ommit and pers·ons serving·i~­legal sentences ·may. obtain collateral relief. Th.e action

' estab]jshed in this subchapter'shan be the sole means· of Qbthln­. ing collateral relief and encompasses an· other common law and statutory, remedies for the same' ptirpos~ that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram 'nobis. This subchapter .is not intended to limit the availability of remedies in the triarcourt or on direct appeal from the judg­

. ment ·of sentence, to provide a means for raising issues ,·waived in prior proceedings or to provide relief from' collateral conse ..

. quences of a criminal ·Conviction.· Except as specifically provided otherwise, all provisions of this. subchapter shall apply· to ·capital and noncapital cases.

601

§ 41:5 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES· AND RELIEF

§ 41:5. · ··Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under: 42 . · · ,. Pa. Cons.'1Stat. §§'9541to9546-§ 9542--Case 1law ·

Fo~ cas~ law on § ~542, see. e.g.,. C~rn: ~- D,escardes~ ;1a6 A.3d 493. (Pa .. 2016) ·(we· consider whether appellee ·Claude_. Descardes was entitled.to '8'eek reView~'ofhis'iheffe~tiveiiess of' counsel claiih~ based :on coUn.sel's failure to 'adVise ;lilin~·or the 'collateral. coilse~ queiice~ othis'guilty piea;viji··a petition for writ of coram.nobis; we con'clude ·that he· was not; a Claim· is ·cogrifaable· 'under the PCRA ·if the petitjoner pleadS and '.proves by~ a. preponderance Of the'eVidenee· that: (1) ·he has beeii convicted of a crime 'under the laws of· this· Colllinonwealth, (2) he is serviµg a· sentep.ce of impn~ori.nie~t, probation, ·or parole for. the· c~me; and· (Sf his· conViction,reslilted &om'. ori.e of se~en 'eniimera'.ted errors" set forth in 42 Pa~Cori~.Stat; -'§ 9543(a)(~)',1 including· ineffe'Ctive assi'stance of counsel; .the PORA prov.ides the .exclusive· remedy for.postcon­Victic)n claims' s'eeking ·:restoration of. appe~late rights du~· 'to co!Ullsel's' f~iire ~· p'enect a ·direct appeal; where a' claim is' cog­ni'zable un~t the PCRA,: the PCRJ.\ is the ·only method of.obtain~ ing colla~rai .. r~View)i Com.· v. Tu~rier, -622 Pa. 318, 8o' A3d' 754 (2013), cer.t. d~qied, ~3.4, S. yt. 1771, 188 .L. ~p. 2d ·6q2 (20i4) (PCRA:sU,bsu;mes tll.e temefil.e~ of habeas CQrplis and;coram 'il.obis; petitioner 'seelD.ng. relief under· Post' Conviction Relief Act waived coram nobis ·relief,; whe~e-· petitioner failed to request. such relief below and failed to present i~ .~EJ. ~n i:µternative ba~is of ~~lief on appe~l); Corrt<V· Spotz, 616 ~a. lp4, 47 !A.3d .63 (2012) (while cumulative prejudice may properly be assessed ~ith,respe,ct to individual claims that have failed due to lack of prejudice, a bald ·averment of cumulative prejudice, without a specific, reasoned, . a1,1cJ l~gally . ~n4 ,fact.ually .~U.PPQrted ~:rgun;t_~nt; · <;l.oes. not con~ti.­tute a,claim und~r.the Post Conv.i~on ~lief Act); Com .. v. DeJesus, 619 Pa. 70, 58 A.3d 62 (2012) (murder defendant's burden of proof· as to mental retardation., . ..in proceedl~g. u~nder the ~ost ~oayicti~n .~view Act, in which h~'sought r~li¢(fro~. tJ:ie.,death pei;talfy.put~~ant to Unite.d State~·~upr~llle qo\:Ui's lde~isfon·in AtJpi;is v~:· Vfrg4iia, wW;ch .b~ed .~x~'cut~on of mentally retar~ed .defen.«~p.ts, .was B: .. preponderanc~. of the etjdence, rat.her than 'cle.~.'4nd c9.nviricin~ eyidei;tG~ Q~ .. p,~oofberon~ a ~ea~on.a:t?le· .. d~.¥bt; preponder~nce ~ta,ndard cQmported with the .. , bu,rd~n us~~lly imposed on, criminal defend~~~s .. ~o .prove,their_.affirmative.d~'~n­ses,,an~ was ,in. line·wj.th th~cmajqrity of states to adch."~ss the is­sue; .defend~t would; not be prejudjced by. re~and for tb~ purpose of allow4ig-Commonwealth tQ introduce· new evidence undermjn­ing .defendant's Atkins .claim; -.new. evidence concerned ,defendant's own conduct;:new evidence would be su~ect to appropriate· chal­lenges on remand, purpose .of the remand was to allow trial court to render a definitive judgment achieving substanti~ justice, and

602

PENN8YLVANIA. . ' ' : § 41:5

trial court that granted ·relief recognized,: that the ~tkins 'questio~ was a.close one); Com~ v~' Williams,! 619 Ra. ·219, ·61.A.3d;979 (2013) (question involving ·:whether. ta:' post-conviction. relief petitioner fits the definition of mental retardatloil is fact intensive as· it .will primarily ;be based upon: the testiniony_.of experts .imd involve· multiple* credibility : determinatiohs;, for ·purposes· .of deterinining Whether· El defendant j9 mentally. :retarded;· ana, I th US,

ineligxole for·the death penalty~1although1an individual's IQ ·score. is the ·primary··measuremenP'forJiritlted· intellei!tual functioning, b~cause· ·the interaction 'between limited iintellectual: functioning and deficiencies· iri: adaptive skill~ i& .necessary to establish mental retardation,~ a· sufficientlythi~h IQ:scor~, in itself,.. will not: bar-~ court :from finding an indiVidual is;mentally retarded, nor will' ·a low IQ·score in itself categorize.·a-person as mentalJ.y,retarded; substantial· evidence suppo~ted1.conclusion ithat :capitaLmurder defendant.was mentally· retarded, .thus 1.precluding. imposition~of the death :penalty; .defendant JQ score was. between 70 .and··75, placing him in the:mildimentalretardation range, defendant had significant deficits in adaptive functioning, incl'1~g an-inability to read, perform basic job-related tasks·,1 handle .finances;· .assist his. son with homework, ·.or take: care -of his diabetes~ an'.d defendant's mental retardati0n-was· present\·well- before. :he reached :the age of 18);. Gom. · v. Haun,, ·a.is ·P&;~, 97, 32· A.3d. ~697 (2011) (a concession of guilt'does not, per se, foreclose. prisoner access. to the ·PCRA); Com. v. Foster.; 609.·P~. 502, 17 A.3d ·332 (2011) (where. a· sentencing court is required to 'impose a inanda­.tory; minimlim sentence, and that mandatory minii'nwil sentence affects, a trial court's traditional sentencing authoijcy, or the Gen­eral AssemblY's .intent.in fashioning· punishment .for .crimip.al conduct,· a :defendant's.·challenge, thereto . sounds in; legality of sentenc~ and is ·nonwaivable); Corn. ·V~ 1Watts~ 611Pa~,80;' 23 A.3d 980 (2011) (PCRA is the1srile means .of obtaining collateral .re~ef on issues that are cognizabl~ under~ the statute; :the· P-CRA time restrictions are jurisdictional ~Ji.ature; consequently,· Penn~lva­nia courts may not entertain· untimely PGRA petitions; the stat­ute confers: no authority :upon. the Supreme -Court:: to ;fashion -ad hoc. equitable exceptfons to· the ·PORA.time-bar ;in addition to those exceptions expressly :delineated ·ini the Act; the: time restric­tions. in. the existing statutory .scheme are reasonable. Slid accord· -finality .. to the collateral review .process.); Com. v. Bracey, 604

1 Pa.

459, 1 986 A.2d 128 (2009) (Sixth-:Amendment;. as'.construed . .in Ring v. Ar.izona, which declared .that .·capital r.defenda:\lts : had .a right .to jury: determination ·of~any-fact.1 on which -le~slature conditioned ·an increase in iµaximum · punishment,..did not· l_'equire a jury to' make the relevant·:factuaL.deterrilinatibn of mental retardation on an Atkins·;v. _;Virginia· claim raised collaterally in

603

§:41:5 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

pos~conviction proceedings,· in which claim defendant contended that, in light of his mental ·retardation, the Eighth Amendment precluded execution of his death sentence); Satterfield v. Johnson, 434 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2006) (in Pennsylvania, the only means of

- ·collaterally attacking .a conviction is, via a 1Pennsylvania PCRA petition; the ·procedures :for.filing a petition for postconviction relief in Pennsylvania are defined by the PCRA; .the PCRA subswries the writ· of habeas ·corpus. with respect to remedies of­fered under the PCRA; the PCRA required Satterfield, the federal habeas petitioner 1herein, to-:iile.three verified copies of the ap­plication for postconviction relief ;with the court in which ·he was convicted); Com~. v. Judge, 591 Pa. 126, 916 .A.2d r511 (2007) (death sentence ·case; pending federal proceedings do not" justify the dismissal of a petition under the PCRA; the PCRA subsumes all forms of collaterai relief, including hapeas corpus, to the extent that-a reme4y is available under such enactment; we.have previ­ously held that claims of ineffective assistance related to counsel's failure to perfect a,direct appeal were cognizable under the PCRA, ~otwithstanding the fact that such ·claims did not' precisely implicate the· adjudication of guilt or innocence; however, that this court ·has never held that habeas corpus cannot provide, a separate remedy, in· appropriate circumstances; indeed, the boundaries of cognizable claims under the PCRA can ·only be extended so far as is. consistent with the purposes of the statute, and we believe that petitioner's·'claim concerning his deportation from 0anada to face a ·death ·sentence falls outside the. intended ·scope of the PCRA; petitioner ·is not asserting his innocence1 of the underlying crimes .or that: his sentence was illegal when imposed; his claim is that executing him .would violate interna-. tional law because· Canada violated: his· rights under. the Interna­tional Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by deport­ing him to face a sentence of death without obtaining assurances that the sentence would not be imposed; this claim has no con­nectiorr:tb the truth-determining· process and do not render the underlying adjudication of guilt or innocence, which took place in the United· States· more than ten yea;rs earlier, unreliable; since the PCRA does not provide a ·remedy for petitioner's claims regarding his claini that ·his deportation from Canada violated the ICCPR, they may be raised in. a petition for.writ of habeas corpus); Com. v. Fowler, 2006 PA Super 30, 893 A.2d 758 (2006) (claim that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel :by failing to challenge defective colfoquy on grounds that the plea court ·did riot' ensure that· defendant was aware of the elements· of the crim~ to which. he was pleading guilty should have been raised on collateral. review, instead of on direct appeal); Com. v. Williams, 2006 PA Super 279, ·909 A.2d· 383 (2006) (a motion for

604

PENNSYLVANIA ..... §. 41:8

DNA testing, while.clearly.separateand distinct from claims pur­. suant to other sections ·of ·the ... PCRA, nonetheless. constitutes a postconviction petition under the ~CRA).

§ 41:6 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 954~§9548-Custody · : -

. l .requirement-· -

There is a custody requirement applicable to'.Pennsylvania PCRA proceedings .. 42 Pa. Cons .. Stat .. Ann. · § 9543(a): (to , be eligible for relief under the· PCRA, the petitioner must plead· and prove by a· preponderance· ·of. the, evidence .that at ;the time relief is· granted the petitioner is: (1} currently serving a sentence of imprisonment,. probation· or parole for the' .crime; (2) awaiting .ex­ecution of a sentence of death for the crime; or (3) serving a sentence which must expire before the petitioner may commence serving the disputed sentence~ .. J •·

,, ,- ' :

§ 41:7 Pennsylvania Post Gonviction Relief Act under 42. Pa .. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541· to 9546-§. 9543-Grounds for relf ef ; i. •

_The grou~ds for reli~f.unc;Ier the :e,ennsylvania PCIU\, wlµch under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann .. § 9543(a) ~us~. be proved by a preponderance 9f.the. evi~ence~ are 'set forth in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543(a)(2)(i) to. (viii), and all irivolye the' validity of the conviction or sentence. To be entitled to post-conviction relief, defendant must. establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his conviction .or sentence. resulted from one .or· more of ,the enumerated errors in the Post• Conviction Relief Act; his claims have not been previously.litigated or waived, and ·the· failure to litigate the issue prior to or during' trial, or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical deci­sion by counsel. Com. v. Fears, 624 Pa. 446; 86 A.3d 795 (2014).

§ 41:8 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546-§ 954~Grounds for relief-Newly discovered evidence

Thus, newly discovered evidence of innocence is, under the Pennsylvania PCRA, a ground for pqstconviction relief; see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543(a)(2)(vi). (In Pennsylvania, newly discovered evidence is often referred to as "after"'.'discovered evidence.")

Under Pennsylvania's postconviction DNA testing statute, which is incorporated within the PCRA at 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543.1, after DNA testing has been completed under the statute, the con~cted person may, during the 60 day period begin~

605

§•41:8 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND•,RELIEF

Ding on the date on which the· convicted person· is notified :of the test·, results~ file ·under ·42 Pa~: Cons.- Stat. Annr § 9543(a)(2)(vi). a petition for PCRA relief raisllig .. a· claiin of newly discovered· evi~ dence of innocence. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.§ 9543.l(f)(l).

_., ~ ~· ' o • • • : " : < '. ; • • ' .;. - . .'' : I • ; . - " ; I

§ 41:9· Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.§§ 9541to9546-§ 9543---§9543(c)­

. , . . . (11i9~unds for reliet~Unjqu~. gr9un4. . . • .,._ • , l · .. . ..1 I ' ~ .. \ ~ l • ... ., · t, • . ...

. 42 ,pa .. Cons. Stat.·Ann~ § 9543(c), enacted.in 1998, authorizes an additional-in fact, unique~ground! for ~postconviction: relief which was specially created: to deal .. with. a bizm"l."e Philadelphia inurder: case dn which the defendant; .while ;On trial; :had fled the country .. and ended· up :in· a·country which; refused. to extradite· him because his> trial (whi'ch ·resulted in. a conviction)· had continued: in.' his absence. The statutory proVision resulted in.1 the defendant being returned to Pennsylvania ~and granted· a new trial, but it seems highly unlikely that it will eve.r be used again. (For more information on .that weird: case,: and.'.Qn Ira Einhorn:, the defendant-therein; see,. e.g., Corri: v~ Einhorn, 2006 PA Super 322, 911 A.2d 960 (2006).) ~ 'i .

§. 41:10_" ·: ~ Pe~sylvlulia ·:P~s~ Co~:ricti~,l BeliefAct under ~2 -·~: Pa. Cons~'Stat •. §~_9541·t9~9~46-§ 9543-Statute of'

. " , ~ta~ions-;-Newly discov~r~ ~Vide:p.c~ claims .. _.. . b.~s~d on D,N:A test~g ·. · · l . • ·

There.is .a: special :statutJe-.o( limitations ·applicable. to PCRA petitions raising a claim of newly discovered: evidence of.innocence that is based: on DNA .testing' conducting under the state's 'post­conviction DNA testing .statute. Under that ·statute, which·is. iri.corporatec;hwithin the P.CM. at 42 Pa .. Cons .. Stat. Ann. § 954S.1, :after ·DNA testing·has·been. completed under the stat­ute; •.the convicted ·person may, :during the 60 day period begin­ning on tpe date on which the convicted person is notified of the test results, file under 42 Pa. Cons . .Stat. Ann. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) a petition· for 'PCRA 'relief raising a. claim of newly discovered evi­dence of innocence. 42 Pa~ ,Cons. -Stat. Ann. § .. 9543.l(f)~l).

§ 41:1i· Pennsyly&ni~,P~st ConYicti~n :Relief Act. under 42 . · . Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 95~§ 9043-Laches .

• , ' • . j ' • • '. • ' • ; ,

Under the· Pennsylvaaja.;PCRA, laches is a bar to postconvic­tion relief. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.§ 9543(b) (even if the petitioner is otherwise entitled :to relief,· a, petition· for .postconviction relief may be dismissed if it appears at any time that because of delay in filing the petition the commonwealth.has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to ·the petitjon :or to reteyithe petitioner; a

606

PENNSYLVANIA , ~ . ; . § .41:12

petiti9fn .may be1-clismis.sed duei to, !aches: .only after :a hearing; !aches' does not bar relief if the 1petitioner shtlws· that the.· petition is. based~ on grounds which the 1petitioiler cowd not have:. discov­ered by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the delay bec.ame p,..ejudici~l to :the. commonwealth) •. 42: :Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543(b) is modeled aft~r Rule 9(a), Rules Gov:erning Sec­tion 2~54 Cases in the.JJnited States District Courts,: ;which took effE~~t.'on Feb. ·I, 197;.t; anq'was abrog~ted ii120,04.. '. .

1 ' ~ • 1 •, : 1 _ - • •' , ! I ,. 1 • • • , t \ ' 1· • I ' • j • ' - •

§ 41:12 Pennsylvania Post Convictiori)Relief Act Urider 42 ., ·'-' .: ;,Pa.·cons.·stat.·§§:9541to:9546-§95~Text of

, " : ; ; •: § 954S: • • '.:' ; ' _; . ' ' (I · '

·· :§ :9543·~ EligibilitY for~r~li~t " · · · · ! ·.. • • ;, •

. . (,a). G~Jleral ru~~·~To b~ e_~ig~ple .. for reJi~f un~ef this , subchapter, .the p~titiop.er.i.n.ust plead and prove bya preponder­

.. : ,all~~l of #:,~vi~e~~e '~i. ~f .~11~:. follpwing:. '. .. I ' . ·. " .· . .. . •: ~~ , . '; 1 • .(i) 'rhat the, p,etitj.oqerihas b~en convicted of.a crime under

· ·) , th~. laws of thl.s Co:aunonweaLth and. ,is at the; time relief is ; ~aµ.~ed1 ~·, . , ; 1. \ j ; ! •• ~· .. : . • . ' . • ...

, {i): icuriently serving :a: sentence ·of1imprisonment, proba-tion! ·or parole for the crime; ! - '. ·. · · . , .. i : ·• ·

(ii) i:aw~itiP:g: executfon· o(a .sentence' ·of' death for the . : ! . crime•· or . ' . ' . : ' -,, ' . t' ' • . ' . . .

(iii) sel"Ving a 'sent~nc~ 'whlch ;tjfost ~xpfre before the . -person niay ~o~enee; se~~g tlie, dj.sputed senteil~e.

: ' .. ; : (2) 'That 'the' conViction 'ofjseiitence~;resuitea tram; one or I more :bf the followmg':·~ ,:•:' '• ' ·~. ::i~ • I I.' i' : •

I • • • .. j ' -; J .. I • .... ~- ' I I • 1 • \ • : • • • • • ... • , t • •

· · (i) : A viola~ipn qf. t4e "Constitriti~n of tJ.?.is Go~onwealth • ~~ 1 ~1i~ _<;Jonst~tt~ti~~. tjt, la~s: · o(~h~ · :U~t,ed '_$tat~s wJ:µcI?-,. in the c1rc·umstances of the ·~a-rtJ.cul~r case, so undermined

. the trutli~Cietemumng process ~that no' reliable· adjudication · · : of gliiit.'6r innocence!couHi'ha~e·tfikeh place. · . ·

f, • I - I ' -,, , 0 I I 1 ~ •

(ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which,' in the cir-cumstances of the particular case, so undermined the .

. • r . t~th~deEermi~~g process.' that. ho· ·re1:ialile' adjucJication! of '' ·1guiltor 1nnocenceicould1 liave'taken place •. · · '· ·

(iii) A plea of gwlty unlawfully· induced where the cir­cumstances µi~ke it liltely th,a~,th~. ip.cJuc~ment caused. the petitione·r to pleB:d gajl,ty ;~d ~he. petitiol:l-ef. ~s .iru;iocent.

. , .· .. (iv);~Thejmprop~r, obstructioµ_'bY,goveI"IllDent. ofti9i~s of the peti~ionets.right of.~ppeal where .. a merito~ous ~pp~al~

.. · able i~sue e~st~4. '1lld :"!V~~ ,p,:pperly, preseryed in the tp~l ~ourt. : , :: ' ' ' I . ' :

(v) [Deleted in 199.5,J..·:1 ... ·; .. 1~

6Q7

§ 41:12 · STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(vi) 'The unavailability:at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence ·that has· subsequently become .available and would have changed the outcome ·of the triaj. if it had been

· introduced. · (vii) The imposition of a sentence greater·· than the law•

ful maximum. ' : · · (viii) A proceeding in a trib~~al without jurisdiction.· ..

(3) That the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived. . . .. ..

(4) That .th~ failtjr~ to litigate. th~ issue ppor to~or during trial, during unitary review or -on direct appeal. could not have been the result of any rational, strat~gic or tactical de-cision by counsel. . · ' '. · · · ·~ · ' · · · (b) Exception:-Even if the petitioner has met. the require­

ments of subsection (a), the· petition shall'be:dis~_sse9 if'it ap­pears at any time that, because ·of delay in filing'the petition, the Commonwealth has been prejudiced either in its ability to respond to' the petition or in~ its ability to re-try the petitioner. A petition may be dismissed due to delay in the filing by the petitioner. only after a hearing upon a motion to dismiss. This subsection does not apply if the petitfoner shows that the peti­;tion. is based on grotinds of whip~ th~_. petitioner c~uld not have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the delay bec~e prej,u~9ial to the Co~onwealth. : ,

(c) Ext~adition.-:.If the P.etitipn~r's conyiction anq s~ntence resulted from a trial conducted in· his absence and if the petitioner has fled to a ':foreign cotintry that refuses' to extradite him because a tri~l in abs~_ntia wa,s employed," ihe. petitioner

' shall be· entitle~ to. the. gra.~t-· of~ new_ trial 'if the refusing ~ountry agrees by virtue of thi's ·provision to return him· and if the petitioner upon such retu~n tO ~his jurisdictipn .so' r~quests. This . subsection shall _apply, IiotWithStan~g anf other law or judgment to the contrair. ' . . : : ·. ' . . . , .· ' ' r

'l ' ' . _j

§ 41:13 .P~nnsylvania Po.st.Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541:.to 95~§-9543-Burden of ;Proof-Case law.

For case law on'burden· of proof, see e.g.~· Com. v:'DeJesus, 619 Pa. ·70, ~8 A.3d 62 ·c2012) (death ·sentence case; petitioner filed petition· under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act seek­ing,· ·among other·things,·relieffrom the death penaltyi>ursuant to U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v.- -Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002), which barred exe­cution of mentally retarded defendants; postconviction petitioner's

608

.1

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:18

burden of proof as to mental retardation was a preponderance of the evidence, rather than clear and convincing eVidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt); Com. v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17, 18 A.3d 244; (2011) (to prevail on a petition for PCRA relief, a ·peti~ioner must plead and prove .by. a preponderance of the evidence 'that his or her conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the circumstances enumerated in 42 Pa. ·cons. Stat. Ahn. § 9543(a)(2); these· circuµistances -include a· violation of the ·Pennsylvania or United States Constitution or· ineffectiveness ·of counsel, either of which "so undermined the truth-determining' pro,cess' that no reli­able adjudication of guilt: or innocence coUld have taken place~'; a P,etitioner,·miist also.show ~hat the· claims ·of error have not been pr~viously litigated ot waiv~d; ~·issue has ·.been waived ''if the petitioner could Jiave raised it but failed to dq. so bef9re trial~ at trial, on appeal .or ill;, a prior st_ate postco.nviction proceeding'';· an issue ·has been previo~ly litigated ~f the highest· app~llate corirt in which the. petitio~_er. could have. had review as a ~atter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue); Common._wealth v. Albr~cli_t~ ~06 Pa. 64, 994 A.2d l091 (2010) (postco~viction petitio;ner bears. the burden of '.~emonstrating that the iss~es he i_s pursuing .have not been preViously litigated or waived); Com. v. Weiss, 604 Pa. 573, 986 A.2d 808 (2009) (to be eligible for post~ convic#cm relief, a p~ti'ticm:er mu~t. prove ~y a preponde.rance' of th~ evidence that his tcori.~ction ·or sentence resulted fro;m one or more of the enumerated circumstances found in· the PCRA that m8.ke a petitfoner eligible for postconviction relief, and further, the petitioner must demonstrate that the issues raised in.his Pe­tition h~ve riot peen previously litigated or waived); Com.· v .. Ligons, 601 Pa'. 103, 971 A~2d 1125 (200,9) (in:· order to be ~ligible,,for PCRA relief, Appellant ·must prove ·by a preponderance of t}?.e ev­idence that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated circttmstances found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2) ~setting fqrth the, ;eligibility· ~~-q\lireme~t~~ .of, ~l;t~ PC~);. furthe.r, Appellant must demonstrate that the issues' raised· m. his PCRA petition have 'not .beeri previo,u~ly litigated or waived;' an isstie has been -previously litigated if ·"the 'highest a:ppellS;te ·court in which the petitioner could have had review as a mat~r of right has ruled on the merits of the issue;" PCRA claim is waived if the petitiqner could have raised .it but fail~d to do so befor.e trial, at trial,· dU)ing unitary reYfew, on appeal o:r;- in a. ptjor st~te postcon­viction proceeding; further, we rio lOnger apply'the relaxed waiver doctrine in capital PCRA appeals);. Com. v. Gibson, 592 Pa. 411, 925 A.2d 167 (2007) (death· sentence case;' on a petition· for post­conviction relief by a"defendant challenging his death ·.sentence on the grounds of mental retardation,· the defendant -must estab­lish the claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the postconvic.:.

609

§'41:13 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

tion judge. is the appropriate· fact finder,, and the stan'dar.ds set forth in~ithe Diagnostic. and .-Statistical Manu~l .of Mental Disorders- and· by the· American Association for· Mental Retardat­tion are appropriate measures, whi~h require the defendant. to establish his: (1). limited or· sub~ve~age intellectual. functioning; (2). significant adaptive limitations; and~ (3) age of onset as being prior1to his' eighteenth l;>irthday; he?ie,1 substantial evidenc~. sup'.'." porte.d determinatiop. that death-sen~enced_ defencJant w~s rp.ep.~~ly ret~ded, th~~. warraµ.ti~g rema11d fC?.~ yac.at~on, of d~~ti, ~ei;ttence and ;imposition of life. :sente~ce; relief granted); Com. v. Zook,, 1;)85 Pa·. 11,._88~ A..2d ~~18 (20Q5).(qeath- s~ntepc,e .case.;,in order t~ b~ eligible ·fc;>r po~tco~vfotio~ .reµef~ ~. ·~ef~~dan~ ,mri~t plead and-proye by a pre-pond~ra~c.e. of the.ev1d~Jice that his conviction or' sentence. arose from one or more enumerated errors and· th~( i$sµes h~ ·raises have: ~ot bee11:· previousiy litiga~ed or wfiiyed; Q:~r~, defense. coµri$el rendefed ineft'~.ctive assistance_· in penalty' phas·e; relief granted); Com. v~ Hall,. 5~2 ~a .. 526, 872 ~.2d 11~7 (2005) (death. sente~~ ca'se; in~ft'ective col.tilset claim; in o~der· tc> be'.· eligib~e · for .PC~ reli~f, a· ·petitioner~ ~qst pleaci ~Iid proV,e. bY; a. pre:eo.n4e;ra~ee of t~~ ·~viqe_iice thi;i~ his con~ction or sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 P,a .. d.S' .. §. ~~4S(a)(2) a,rtd that:~~· issues: have no~~-be:en fb~ally litig~ted. pr w.ajved; a claim is deemed preyiqui;;ly ljtigated ~der the .PC;RA if.the highest app~Uate cou~ ill which 'the petitioner ~owd h~ve had'r~Vie'Y as a' niatter'of zight qai;'rµletl on the m~9ts of the issue; _an, ~H~g~tion _is.' ~e~med w·aived 'if ~h~ petitio~et could have 'raised' it but failed to ~do so before trial, at trial, dur~ ing ~DJt~ry. revie~~· on appea~ 'ot.in;'a prl~(s'tat.e. p~stc~~Vi~t~6'.~ procee~g); Com:~- Maynard~ 2006~PA' S,upe.r' 11~, ·goo A~d 395 (~O_D6)~ :<~etitio11er ·~~~ ~~t ent_i~l~d . t~ J?~~t·4o~victio~ review of ~Ianµ .tnaJ counsel was meffect1v~ for failiµg to µI~ direct· appeal fyom ,conViCtion's entered pursuant to n~go'ti,ated gµilty pleas;.al­tho~glf c'9µns~l_ may pe'-'irieffectite"for f~illng~ t~)~l~' ~ 'dir,e~t ap~ peal on: hiS :client'$ J~ehalf, a postconVictiOn petitioner must prove that he 'aaked cohrisel to file . an appeal in' order to be entitled ·to refi~f; the· fpetitfoner lia,s· ~the bur~en of proving t}\at 'h~ reque~t~'d a direct ~ppeal and ~hat)is co~nseq1eard µut'ign()red 'or rejected ·t~e ,req_~~,s_t). -_; , . . , : . ~ . · · · · ; · · · - · · · · "

§' ~i:i•; .i>~~sylvania :P~>s~ .~~O:~c~io~ R~liet.Aqt ~a~~:•2 ' , · · · , -P~. Cons~ ·~tat. §§: 9Q41 to 9546-:--§ $C)~hu~ff~t~ye . . , .. ~:assistanc·e of ccnmsel-Case law . ·.' . ·.' J • • ·l ' · '.:

'· • ; • - • '~ I ( ' ' '. •, - .. • L .- - • • : • • ~ '~ ••• ' I • ' ... ~. ~ t • I

: .;For case·. law .. on m~£rectiv~- .assistance of 1coµnsel as 1 a· grp.unds for: ie.lief, $ee e.g., Com .. _p ... Vandivner, 130 i\.3d 676 ,(Pa. 2015) (to prevail on a claim ·of. ineffe~tiven.e~s of.. co.uns~l q.nd~r the Post Conviction Relief Act, a .p~titioner.must establish that no reason:..

610

PENNSYLVANIA §:·41:14

able basis existed·-.for .counsers .action or1failure to act, .and.that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a:·r.esult of counsel's err~r, with prejudice measur.ed by whether.,,.there is·: a ·reasonable. prob~ ability that the result of the : ptoceeding1 ·woulq. have. been differ-· ent);.: Com. v. Daniels, .104 A.3d 267 (Pae:~ 2014) (death sentenae case);. relief granted to· one: petitio.ner.. for postconviction. relief and :denied as to .the :other); .Com. v .. Htll; .. 104. A,3d.l220. (Pa .. 2014) · (remand was r.equired ·fol'· ,the ... Supedor. Court to determine whether· trial counsel was ineffective .in .failing to; :file :a motion· to $Uppress defendant's.~tatement following polygr~ph, where the Superior Court's re.view. was .defiei~nt· fil, several ·re$pecta, includ-

. ing ·failures to :consider· :the· trial ,record, aGkno.wledge the s.trong presumption:: of ·effectiveness, :asefes.s 1eounsel's performance bas~d upon the .govemiinglaw rin exiatence ~whel). counsel was,; alleged .to have acted .. ineffectively, and .assess· .the actual harmful effect of defendant's'.. statement); Com. v. ~ Spot.z,. 624 .Pa.\ 4; 84 A.~d 294 (2.014) (~iPCRA p,etitioner;will be. gral).ted relief.only:when he pr.ov.es, by, a ·prepondera.nce of the. evidence,, that his conviction_, or

. $e.nt0Q.C~·resultedfrom the.in13ffective as&ist~nce. of qOUil$01 WPiQh, in the, circuins~ances of.the ·pairticulm.- case, SO· undermined the truth~determining process'. that ·no· reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence· C()uld have taken _place; COw:;tsel is presum~d, ~ffectiv~, and tQ,rebut that presumptiQn,.the,PCRA. p~tition01iPlU$t delllon­strate·tlu~ . .t;coll;Ilsel's. perform_ance wEJ,a·.deficient and th~t· $ucb de­ficiency prejudiqed him); Com~ p. Elliott, 622 _Pa; !236, 80 A3d 415 (2013); cert~ denied, 1.35 .S. Ct .. 50, 19.0. L.~- Ed. 2d· 54 (~01~) .(d~fendant waived for. ppstconviction i;md a.ppellate re~~w issue as. to whether his trial .cpµnsel renp;ered in,effe.~tive. assist~ce. by failing. to m~e~. with bim perso.nally .. ;prior. to,. .trial. or ot}l.en.vi$e prep.ar~: for trial; in\ iirat-degr~e .. m.ur.deri:P.J'Q$~,cution in which death penalty. was sough.t;: defendant di(.l .not include in }l.is peti~ .tion for po~tconviction reUef.th13 elai.ni :all~gi:Qg :trbd coup.sel's i~effectiveness· fQr failing to,!fileet;with, :him,;piior. to; trial, and defondant. did not: obtain permissioµ tc;> .amend! b.i~. petition. to include the. issue); Com. v. J?b#istin,r 617 l?.a~ a58, 53 A.3d. 1 (201~) .(petitjo:g.~r:.~"LJ$t. plead,. ii\. h~::-iPCa,A.~pet~tjon, that appellate coum~el was ineffe~tivei for f~Ung; to .raise all prior couns~l's in~f­fective~eas; additio~ally, -a· pe~tioneli. m;a$t ! pres~I;lt .a.rgument on, i.e. develope~ch prong:Qf.th~1J,>ierce test)_~s to appellate counsel's ~eficient representation); . .Com.4_._v. Thomas, 61~,-Pa. 47'1_, 44 A.34 12 (2012). ("Pier:qe test'~ .requir~s appella~t1 to prove, with .~espect to appellate counsel: (1). the underlyip.g claim. of trial ·couns.el~s ineffectiveness has . argwtble: µierit; .. (2). appellate '.~punsel. P,ad ,no reasonable :basis for failiµg to .pursu~ .the. claim; .. and (3);.but for appellate counsel's ineffec~ive:qess, . a rea.~onable! ,probability eX.~ ists that the ,outcome of the appeal woqld· have, been. diffe~en.t.;

611

§ 41:14 STATE PosTCoNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND RELIEF

failure to satisfy any of the three prongs of the· Pierce test requires . . rejection of a claim of ineffective ·assistance of trial counsel, which, in· turn, ·requires rejection of a layered claim of ineffective assis­tance of direct appeal counsel);· Com. v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159, 36 A.3d 121 (2012) (generally, where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, ·counsel?s assistance is deemed constitutionally ef­fective ·if he chose a· particular course that had some reasonable basis designed· to effectuate his client's interests; courts should not deem counsel's strategy or tactic unreasonable .unless it can be· concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially ·greater than the course actually pursued; as· a general rule, ·a lawyer· should· not be held ineffec­tive without first ·having an opportunity to address the accusa­tion in some fashion; ultimate focus of an ineffective· assistance of counsel inquiry is always upon counsel, and· riot upon· an alleged deficiency in the abstract); -Com. v. Walker,.613 Pa. 601, 36 A.3d 1 (2011) (to properly raise and prevail on a layered claim of-inef­fectiveness of counsel, sufficient to warrant 'relief if meritorious, t~e petitioner for· postconviction ·relief must ·plead,· present; ·and prove the ineffectiveness of direct appellate counsel, by: (1) p~ead­ing, in the Post ConvictiOn Relief Act· petition, that direct:appel­late co~sel was ineffective for failing to ·allege that trial counsel was ineffective . in taking some action or in failing to take som.e action and (2) present argum_~nt, on·, i.e:~ develop,. each . prong of the Pierce ineffective assistance test as to direct· appellate counsel's representation, in his postconviction briefs or other court memoranda; -then, and only then, has· the petitioner preserved a layered claim of ineffectiveness for the postconviction trial court to review, and· then, and only· then, can the -postcori.vic­tion trial court proceed to determine whe.ther the petitioner has proved his layered claim; given the complexities posed by layered ineffectiveness claims, the better· practice is not to reject claims of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness on the grounds of inade­·quate development in the appellate brief if the deficiencies in the brief mirror those in the PCRA pl~adings, unless the· PCRA ·court invoked these' deficiencies as the ·basis for its 'decision and af­forded an opportunity to amend);· Com. v. C.hmiel, 612 Pa. 33~; ·30 A.3d 1111 (2011) (boilerplate allegations ·and bald assertions of ·no reasonable basis and/or ensuing prejudice cannot satisfy a defendant's burden· to ·prove that counsel· was ineffective; if defendant seeking postconViction relief cannot prove the underly­ing claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness, then petitioner's deriva­tive claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness of necessity must fail, and it is not necessary ·for the cou.rt· to "address the "reason­able basis" and prejudice prongs of the· Pierce ineffective assis­tance test as applied to ·appellate· counsel); Com. v.: Paddy, 609

6i2

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:14

Pa. 272, 15 A.3d 431 (2011) (to prevail in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner for relief under Post Conviction Relief Act must·overcome the presumption that ·counsel is effec- . tive by establishing that: (1) ·underlying legal claim has arguable merit, (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his :or her action or inaction, and (3) petitioner suffered prejudice because of eounsel's ineffectiveness; in PGRA proceeding, a claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness for· failing to raise a .claim of trial counsel inef­fectiveness is distinct from a claim· of appellate counsel inef­fectiveness grounded in the manner ;in which appellate counsel litigated a claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness on ·appeal;· in the former case,. the claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness ·has been waived, but in the latter case,.· the claim .of trial counsel inef­fectiveness claims has been- previously litigated); Commonwealth v. A/,brecht,·606 Pa.·64, 994A2d:1091 (2010) (standard of ineffec­tive assistance of counselis the same' in the Post .Conviction Relief Act context as· when ineffectiveness claims are raised· on direct review); Com. v. Colavita, 606·Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 874 (2010) (counsel is presumed effective, and :to· rebut that presumption,. the· PCRA petitioner· must· ,demonstrate that counsel's performance 'Was deficient and that such deficiency: prejudiced him; Pennsylvania has refined· the Strickland performance and prejudice test into, a three-part inquiry; to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show thaV. (1) the underlying legal -issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked an objective· reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudice befell petitioner from counsel's act or omission; where matters:-of strategy and tactics are concerned; counsel's as­sistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particu~ lar course that had ·some: reasonable basis-+ designed to .effectuate his client's interests; finding that· a chosen strategy lacked area­sonable basis is not warranted unless it can:be concluded that an

·alternative not·chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than· the course· actually pursued; to d~monstrate preju• dice, the petitioner must show that there is 1a. reasonable prob­ability that, but for counsel's error or omission, the result of the proceeding :would have been different); Com. v. Fletcher, 604 Pa. 493, 986 A2d 759 (2009) (strategy1chosen by defense counsel will not be found to have lacked a reasonable basis, as would support a claim of ineffective assistance in a ·proceeding under the PCRA., unless it is- proven that 'an alternative: not chosen offered a potential for ,success substantially greater than the course actu­ally pursued;· For purposes ·of his ''layered" claim of ineffective as­sistance, postconviction petitioner would be required to prove Strickland/ Pierce ineffectiveness as :to·:both· trial and appeal counsel, in ·order to ·prove 'the cognizable claim of ·appeffate counsel ineffectiveness;· defendant cannot· allege· his ·own inef-

613

§ 41:14 STATE PosTCONVICTIC?N REMEDIES AND· RELIEF

fectiveness or that of standby .counsel in -a proceeding under the PCRA;, claim not ·raised .in· a post-verdict motion cannot serve-as the. ~basis for .relief. in. a. proceeding .under-.the .-PCRA, wher~ the defendant ;repr.esenteµ himself during the post-verdict stage· of the• criminal. ·procee.dings, since relief would: be dependent on defendant's establishing his own. ineffectiveness for not raising the claim ~.such is not a· denial of defendant~s due process.rights; defendant's assertions, on appeal of the denial of ·his PCRA claims of ineffective assistance, that he was incompetent to effectuate •a valid waiver of.counsel and that ithe waiver colloquy was deficient, were not-r~viewable, whereihe failed, to preserve them by-pre­senting: them in a PCRA petition); ·com .. v.- Daniels, 600 Pa. 1, 963-A2d 409 (2009) (it is well-settled that a petitioner can: obtain relief. on .. an'- ineffective. ·a$s,istance :of counsel claim only i{i he demonstrates .that counsel's performance was .. deficient and'.'that

. the· deficiencies .prejudiced the petitioner;. in ·Peruasylvania, we have applied; the Strickland test -by looking· to ,three elements; thus, in· order -to succeed. ·on a .. claim ·;0f ineffectiveness;J-the , petitioner must establish that: the claim.js .of arguable merit, no reasonable .. trial strategy existed. for counsel's. action or inaction, and. the outcome. ~of the proceedings would· -ltaye; been different but for counsel's failures;. a failure to satisfy anyi ·prong of the ineffectiveness test. requires r.ejection of.. the claim of ineffective­p.ess); Com. v. -Steele, 599 Pa .. 341:,-, 961 A.2d 786, (2008), (when

· determining whether counsel's~,actions1.or' omissions :were. reason­able, "we do not question. whether~)thete. were .<>thev. mor~ logical courses of .. actions. -which counsel could have ·pursued: rather, we must examine whether counsel's decisions .had (any reasonable basis; further, to_ establish prejudice, a- petitionel'l.niust demon­strate that: but for: the act .or omission in question, the outcome of the proceedings would.have been different); Com. v; Johnson, 600 Pa.- 329, 966 A.2d· 523 (2009) (a. PCM petitioner will be gr.anted relief only. when, he . proves,: by. a.- preponderance of. the. evid~nce, that his.conviction··or sentence.resulted from.the ineffective assis~ tance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so ;undermined.the'.truth-determining·process that.no reli:r able adjudication of·.g-uilt.or innocenc~ could have takeI,t place); Com. v. Reed, .. 60.l Pa .. _257, 971. A2d 1216 (2009) (in this: appeal, we consider whether: theJiling of a rdeficient appellate brief con­stitutes a complete :denial of counsel so as .to ;warrant . .a presump­tion of prejudice in: the :context 0£ an.ineffective assistance-.of co,unsel claim; the·:Superior: Court fever$ed .the PCRA·.court's denial of Appellee Adam Reed's petition .for: ·relief under the Post Convicti.on.:.Relief Act.on the basis th~t the.filing ofa deficient·ap~ pellate brief. by Reed's direc~, appeal counsel created a pre.sump­tion ·of prejudice, .. and, !therefore.:,,, that Reed su,ccessfully .estab-

614

I

I PENNSYLVANIA ' : . . • '. ' ~ f .

.• 1·.~.) § 41:14

lish~d lie· waeF denied effective :assistance of counsel; accordingly, the Superior Court reinstated:Reed!si·appellate rights:nunc pro tune; as we.conclude that.theSuperior·CoUrt erred in .this regard~ we -reverse); Bom. v .. Gwyn7i,.696 Pa. 398, 948;A..~d· 940 ~2008) (courts must· ;treat ·ineffectiveness :claims· raised' 1.inder the: PCRA as wholly independent of the :ilnderlying·claim of error~ and '.must review. -them unde:r .the; three-prong ineffectiveness standard requiring .the petitioner to prove: (1) the claim has arguable, merit; (2) counsel lacked any'reasonabl~· basis for. his action or -omissipn; an<il .(3) petitioner ,was·prejudiced by courisel's conduct); .Com.' v~ Ruksar,·697: ;Pa. 240;:,951: A.2d 267 (2008) (collateral claims of trittLcounsel.irieffectiveness ;deriving from an underlying claim of error.· that :was litigated .on direct .appeal· cannot automatically be dismissed. as· preViously litigated; , sixth amendment claims chal­lengirig· counsel"s; conduct. at trial: are.analytically distinct from the foregone claim· of trial court error from which they·often de~ rive, and must be analyzed as such); Com. v. Jones, 590 Pa. 202, 912 A.2d 268. (2006) (death sentence ca&e;. trial counsel was inef­fective for failing to· investigate. available. information that would have produced evidence to support statutory mitigating circum­stance~ ~egarding capital ~ll!der d~fe~qant's capacity to .app~eci­ate the criJninality of his coli.i;luct or to .cohlhrm his conduct tc>'the requirements of law was. substantially impaire.d; . capital murder def~nd~t w~s·j>rejµdiced .by.ttj~f~ounsel's in~ffe~tive .assistanAe ~~ failing ·fo :iI1=yestigat~ ava~l~~le 'information tnat. would )1av.e pi•oduh~d evidence to' support s'tatutory ~itigating circum~ st~ces); . Cqm. 'v~; GQrby, 58J ~a.·. 41.7, 900 A.2d 346 (20()6); r~pub~ lisned. at,. p89 P,a.: 364, 90~ 'A.,2d .775 (2.006) '(death sent~nce case; petitfoher

1

re~~ived '-ineffective assistance of trial counsel 'during s~nten9in«; .ftirj;hermore, .4fr~ct appeal cou~sei's failure' to raise iS-Sue of trial 'counsel's ineffectiveness con~tituted ineffective as~ si~t·anc~ .0{~ppellat~ cou*s~l; 'telief granted); . Com. v .. Nativid~cf,~ ~90 .. P~~· '1$8, 938. A,.J~d. 3~0J2007)'._(while tl-ia~ co~ns~~ is 'permitted to Hfe-qu~lify the Jury, he 'is p:ot per· se ineffective ·for· ·f~jli:qg to do so; Qo:urls~l .is <>~ligated only ·to: erisure. th~t the .]ucy 'selection.. pro~ c~~$. is· fair an,d impartial); Coni. v. '.Williams, 5g7· Pa. ~04~' 899 A2d .1060 (2006) (eyide·ntiary hean~g orpered on claim th~t trial counsel's· failrire

1

to plirsue DNA evidence that might ·nave clial­lenged victim's identification of defendant as rapist was ineffec­tive assist~nce of co_unseU; Con:i. v. f,~etcher, 586. Pa. 527, .896 A.2<;1 q08 (2006) '.(death. sent~nce, ·case; 'ili.e~ective.counsel claim; petitioner· claims that counsel ·was ineffective· in failing to secure exculpatory testimony from meClical examiner ~t trial (to bolster petitioner'_s claim thatihe had shot.victim in self-defense); Com •. v. May,.584 "Pa. 640; 887 A.2d.750 .(2005) (death sentence case; defendant's. Claims; of:. ineffective assistance of trial counsel wel'e

615

§ 41:14 STATE PosrooNVlcTION REMEDIES AND· RELIEF

not reviewable on direct appeal and were only available,for post.r conviction. relief review. ·under. PCRA); Com. v. Cox, 581 Pa. 107, 863 A.2d 536 (2004) (death ·sentence .case; .to preserve a 1claim that ·direct appellate counsel was ineffective, .a petitioner for post­conviction relief must; (1) plead, in hisr PCRA petition, that d:Wect appellate counsel was ineffective· for failing· to allege that trial counsel was .ineffective; and .(2) present argument and develop all three prongs. of the Pierce ineffective assistance.test as to direct appellate counsel's representation; in ·Overruling, the . Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that. a.defendant should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of' trial counsel until collateral review); Com. v. Chazin, .2005 P.A Super.143~ 873·A.2d 732 (2005) (petitioner failed to establish, that. he was prejudiced. by defense counsel'-s failure 'to . provide him with any significant· adviee concerning the· commonwealth's .fust .plea bargain: offer, and thus, failed to establish claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).

§ 41:15 Pennsylvania ... Post Conviction Relief Act·:under 42 Pa .. Cons. Stat~ §.§ 9541 to .9546-§ 9543--Laches-- .· Case law

. For case law on laches as a: bar 'to :r~lief under the Penn~ylvania PyRA, see, e.g., Com. v. Rene;he.nskt, '616 Pa. 6Q8, ·52· A.3d 251 (2012) (subsection of statute auth~rizing dismissal of petition for postcon,yiction ;relief upon showi11-g that, ''becam~e of delay. in: fil­ing the petition," the Coµimop:w~alth would be preju~ce~d· eith~r iri its ability tp respond o~ re-try th~ case applied to anieµdeg postconviction petitions; iri drafting statute,:·t;he Legislature haq balanced the policy concerns implicated by. protracted litigation of postconvictfon clairrl.s arid determi~ed that, in ~ertain lnstanc~s of Sl)bstantial' delay, the prejudice suffered by the ·coµurion~eal~li as result of that delay, as derii9nstr~ted ·at a11 eVideritiacy. hear­ing, just~fied dismissal of an origiJ.?.al qr. amended petition); Com. v. Hughes, 581 Pa. 27 4, 865 A.2d 761 (2004) .(death. sentence case; ~even-ye8:r. delay in filing :p~tition qid riot justify· dis~is$a1 withou~. a 'hearing; here, ·the PCRA petition was .dismissed on timeliness grounds without a heating~· ~nd 42. Pa. Col\s. Stat. Anh.§ 9543(b) specifically_precludes a dismissa~,based.upon delay absent.·a hearing). ·

. l

§. 41:16 Pennsylvania. ~ost Conviction Relief Act :under 4~ Pa. Cons._St~t. §§ 954.l tq 9546-§ 954:~Cust~dy ·, requirement-Case. law . . . , ....

For ·case law on the Pennsylvania ·pcRA's custody· ··require~ ment, see, e.g., Com. v. Turner~ 622 Pa. 318, 80:A.3d 754 :(20:13), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1771, 188 L.· Ed. ·2d.i 602· (2014) (que pro-

616

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:16

cess does not require. the legislature to continue to provide collat­eral review. when the, offender is· no longer serving a ·sentence; because:.indhdduals who are not serving a state ·sentence have no liberty· interest in and .therefore no due process right to collateral review of that sentence, the statutory limitation of collateral review tO individuals serving a sentence of imprisonment, proba­tion, or parole is consistent with the due proces·s prerequisite of a protected liberty interest); Com. · v. Judge, 568 Pa .. 377, 797 A.2d 250 (2002) (death sentence· ease·; while· a prisoner must• file in ·a timely manner in order for the PCRA court to have jurisdictfon, nothing in th~ language of the PCRA. requires the prisoner be in the commonwealth when he or she. files a petitfon;. contrary to the commonw.ealth's assertions, § 9543 of the PCRA does not require a prisoner io be in the custody of the '.commonwealth in order for the·· court to have j urisdietion; · to be eligible . for relief under §.9543(a), a prisoner must· satisfy the statutory requirements at both. the . time he or she files the petition and at the time that relief is due; here, the appellant met the eligibility requirements in § ,9543; at the time that appellant ·filed his first PCRA petition, he was serving· his Canadian sentence; Canada refused to.release appellant to the control of the United States and required him to serve his sentence before deporting him; therefore, at the time that he· filed his petition; appellant was· serving a ,sentence that had to expire before ,he could begin his disputed sentence in Pennsylvania, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat., Ann. § 9543(a)(l)(iii); in addi­tion,-·at the time that the PCRA court addressed appellant's peti­tion, appellant was in the custody of the commonwealth and awaiting the execution 'of the sentences of death for his crime); Com:. v. Ahlborn, 548 .Pa. 544, 699 A.2d 718 (1997) (examining custody requirement ·applicable- to petitions filed under the PCRA; appellant contends that the PCRA statutory provision regarding custody requires only that he have been serving a sentence at the time when he .filed his petition, and that it is of no consequence that he ,.finished .-serving his sentence before there was,.an adjudfoation of whether relief w.as warranted; we do not agree; the PCRA clearly contemplates that the petitioner .will be serving a· sentence at both the pleading and proof stages of the· proceed­ing; in cases where.petitioners·have·filed for relief after·their sen­tences have. been -completely served, ·relief has been uniformly denied on the basis of the statuto:cy eligibility provisions of the PCRA); Com. v. Hart, 2006 PA Super 324, 911.A.2d 939 (2006) (our state, supreme court has held that, to be eligible for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner· must be currently s~rving a sentence of imprisonment, probation. or 1 parole for the· crime; as soon as his sentence. is completed, the petitioner becomes ineligi­ble· for relief; regardless -of whether ·he was serving his sentence

617

§ 41:16 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

when he,filed the petition; ·here, when·petitione,:-~filed.his 1PGRA petition,. he was no longer serving the sentence; petitioner was therefore ineligible for relief under the: PORA, where defendant had· served his\sentence; ,the:PCRA precludes relief for those petitioners whose sentences have expired;· regardless of the· col­lateral consequences of their senten(fe);· Com. v. Pagan, 2004,·PA Super 483, 864 A2d 1231 (2004) (here, the.petitioner. ha~ finished serving his Pennsylvani~ sentences when he, applied for ·relief; ;he is therefore .ineligible fo~ relief· under the· PCRA an<f; the di$~ missal of his petition was-.p~oper).: ' ··.· ' ' . ' ··,: i ·, .

. . , i • "· .' • . . • : ; , ~ . , ' ~ I • ~ • ·: ,' ! ~ : .' J '

§ ~1:17 . ~~Jlllsylvania Post Convict~9*· Relief ,t\~t ~der. ~ . Pa •. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 954:6-§ 954~Grounds .. for ;relief-~f3wly ~sc.overed evid~nc&--Ca~e la~ ·

' ... ' •' ..... ,.. ' ' ' . -.

For case law; on n,ew ly _ discovered evideI).ce · of innocence·· as grounds for Pennsylvania PCRA :relief~ see, e.g., Com. v .. Solano~ 129 A.3d 1156 (Pa .. 2015) (petitioner seeking postconvictioil relief on the basis of newly-discovered· evidence must establish the evidence: (l) "was·~discovered after trial .and could not have .been obtained at or prio.r toi trial. through .r.¢asonable diligence; (2) is not~ cuniulative; (3):is not being· used solely to impeach credibility; and·(4) would likely compel a different verdict;.petitioner:was. net entitled· to postconviction relief from :murde~ conviction. based on alleged· newly-discovered confession to shooting ·by witness who testified at postconViction proceeding; witness was serving. a 37~ year sentenc& fot other offenses to· be followed by a .40- to 80-year sentence, witness's testimony was inconsistent with his prior statements, and witness's testimony: 1of shooting ·was .inconsistent with. other testimony);. Com. v.:.Johnson,. 619 Pa. 386, -64 A.3d .621 (2013) (information. discovered during federal habeas proceedings constitutes ~newly discovered'~ ·facts for. pur.poses of. the (b)(:L)(ii) exception to ;the jurisdictional time bar); Corti .. v. Abdul-Salaam, 615 Pa. 297, 42'A.3d 983 (2012) (cumulative effect'of new Brady evidence with evidence that. was. the subject-of a prior Brady claim that petitioner. raised in .a prior: P.ostconviction Relief Act petition did not warrant relief, even 1if evidence-implicated c6i.. conspirator, where evidence was neither materialnor exculpatory as.to petitioner, and .. trial evidence made c;lear that -whatever marginal use may have.been-made of-the Br.ady evidence, its, col­lective effect did not est,ablish a reasonable probability.that :the result of the trial would have .. been: different); Com. v .. Smith; .609 Pa .. 605, 17 A.3d 873 (2011)-(when a petitioner is seeking a new trial 'based on -alleged after.-discovered- .evidence· in the .form of recantation testimony, the petitioner! must establish that: (1) the evidence . has been discovered after trial and· it could not have been obtained, at or prior to .trial.through reasonable diligence;

618

PENNSYLVAN!k, '·· § 41:17

(2) the evidence is not cumulative;· (S) it is not being used· solely to: impeach .credibility; and { 4) ,it -would dikely.. compel a different verdict; the proposed new evidence mus.t be·producible:and:·admis~ sible); Com. v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 951 A.2d 267 (2008) (death s.~ntenc~- case; [Jrady cl~µis d<:l J;lPt ~lled tQ · be_.p:r;~~~ntef} in, terms of i~ef1~ctiv~ness, since:·t4e. essence.!of.th~.claimJ.~ ·_that .the appel­lant was not informe,c;I o( ce~~ e:x;.~uJP~.torY,)n~opnatio~ ~ecause it ~as withheld from· bim by' a 'gove'rrlment'" agency- )Vith a constitutional duty to disclose; some Brady claims, ·of course, can be available atf trial and defaulted; butdf the ;claim is-based upon Brady· material about which the defense .knew nothing, the: ·claim is cognizable~ on its ·own, wider the PCRA);· Com.' v .. Sattazahn, ·597'Pa. 648,·952 A.2d:640'(2008Hdeath sentence case;. no B.rady violation· bccurs where the ··defendant ~knew, 'Or ·:could· have uncovered the relevant evidence· with reasonable diligence);· Com. v. Sam, 597 Pa. 523, 952 A~2d .. 565 {2008)-(deathisentence case; orde.r JJf J>CRA cq~. tpat deni~d the st~te~~- mqtion to co~pel psy­chia~tj~ medi~ation,. ~tho.ugh iµterlo¢:µto_ry,:_.was. imm~cpately ap­.pealable~ as, j~ collat~r,al ·o;r.d~:r; _.:po dJsc~'f-~TY ~~ pe~~e~ B:t any stage of .tµ.e, postcpnvicti,on .p),"ocee4filgs :OA.a µrst, co.unseleq_ peti­tion in a, 9apital case, except upon leave Q(cotu,"t ;afte~ a showing of good cause); Com. v. Ben~ett, q93 _Pa~ 38~,::9,~Q A.~~.' 12~~ (2007) (except. when postconvictiop. ,cow1s~l t\b~µdcms hi~ cli~n:t for purp,os(es of appeal, allegation of post~onvi~tio~, counsel'~ 1inef­fectivene,ss cannot .b~ I ~nvoke4 as. a newly-;d~sc_oy~~ed "fact" for purposes .ofexceptioQ, to .~he one-year ,tiine .l~~it~tjpµ. fo~_filing post~~nvictfon ip~titiQns .. wh:en: __ f~c~s upo~t wq~ch .the .. ~la!m is predicated were unknown: to; petitiqner and coµlq ~ot h~ve :been ascertained by due diligenc~~;. Cqm .. ~· Fisher;, ~82 _Pa. 276, 870 A.2d 8~4 (2005) (death sentence case;· iii order 'to "obtain relief under: the .PCRA. on substantive groti.rlds I coriditio~ed upon newly discovered: eviden~e, a defendant must ~-stablish, '·by" a preponder­ance of the· eVidence, inter · alia; that· such' evidence- ·would; :likely compel a. different verdict; if a PCRA petition is untimely, this court has no jurisdiction. over the :petitiQn);· Co.rn~, .. v~ D'Amato, 579 Pa. 490, 856 A.2d 806 f2004) .(death sentence case;-.to .succeed on an· allegation of direct. appellate C()un8el's .ineffectiveness, if post-. conviction relief petitioner must, at a mininium1 present argumen­tation relative to each layer· of ineffective assistance, .on -all three pr~ngs pf the ineffeqtiy~ness,; stap.da;cd -':Ve -h~;ve prev:iously set forth: (1) the underlying. qlaj.Jn ,has· ~~~bl~; merit; (2.) couns~l's act or omission lac~ed a rea~oriable. basis;·' and (3) "counsel's defi­ciency caused prejtidice·· to petitlhner; tO obtaiif relief based upon ·newly discovered 'evidence µ~~e'F :the :PORA, a petitioner _must es­tablish that: :(1) the ·evidenc~ ·has· been· discovered·,·atter trial and it could;. not have. been~obtaj.nedl at ... or; prior to trial through_ rea-

·619

§'4l:17 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

sonable diligence; (2) the evidence.is:not cumulative;· (3) it is not .being· used· solely to· impeach .. credibility; and ( 4) ·it would, likely compel' a different ·verdi~t)~ :. ' " . 1

, , 'I ' ' i

§ 41:18 1Pennsylvania P~st Conviction Relief Act .under .. 42 ·i Pa. Co~s. Stat.:§§ 9541 to 95~Text of§ 9543.1

§ 9543 .. 1. ,. Po~~co~yiction DNA testing (a). Moti9n.- · . · . · · : .(1) ·An individual convicted of a criminal offense.in a court

of.this Commonwealth and serving a· term of imprisonment or awaiting execution because of a sentence of death may ap­ply by. making a· written motion to the sentencing court' for

· the performance of forensic .DNA testing on specific evidence that is related to the investigation or· prosecution· that resulted in the. judgment .. of conviction ... · (2) ·The evidence may have been dis~overed ·either prior to

·or ·after the applicant's conviction. The ·evidence· sliall be available for testing as o( the date of the motion. If the evi-

. dence·was discovered prior to the applicant's conviction,;the evidence shall not have been subject to the DNA testing requested ·be~ause the technology for testing was· riot in' exis:. .tepee at the· time ·of the trial or the applicant's counsel did ·not seek testing at the·time of the trial in a case where·'a verdict was rendered on or before January 1, 1995, or the ap:. 'plicant's counsel sought funds from the court to pay for the testing because his client was.indigent and the court refused th~ request: despite the client's indigency. (b) Notice to the Commonwealth.-

I -, ,

(1) Upon receipt.of a motioi;i.und~r subsection (a), the court shall notify the Commonwealth and sh~ll afford the Com­

. nionwealth .an opportunity. to z:espon.d to the J,llotio~. (2) Upon receipt of a motion.under subsection (a) or· notice

of the, motion, as applicable, the Commonwealth and the . court~ shall take the~ steps reasonably necessary to ensure

that any remaining .biological. material· in the possession of the Commonwealth .or the court is pres·erved. pending· the completion .of the proceedings under, this· section.· 1

·

.· (c) Requirements.-· In· any··mo~ion under subsection. (a), under penalty of perjury~· the applicant· ·sha~l:· ·

620

,.{J) ci1 specify th~ evid,ence: .. to .be te$ted;. ' •, ' ' • j .._ • • ~

(ii} state that the applicant: ~on~ents to provide samples of bodily flaj.~ for use in the DNA. tf~sting;r and

(iii) acknowledge that. the applicant understands that, if

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:18

the motion is granted, any data obtained from any DNA samples or test results. may be entered into law .enforce­ment databases, may be used in the investigation of other ~rimes and may be used as evid.ence against t~e ·applicant in, other cases. . , . · (~) (i) assert: the applicant's actual innocence of the of­fense for which the applicant was convicted; and

(ii) in a capital case::· · ·(A) as'sert 'the· applicant's actual innocence of the charged or uncharged conduct constituting an· aggravat­ing circumstance under section· 97ll(d) (relating to sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree) if the applicant's exoneration of the conduct would result in vacating a sentence of death; or

(B) assert that the· outcome. of the DNA.testing would establish a mitigating circumstance under section 9711(e)(7) if that mitigating circumstance was presented to the sentencing judge or jury and. facts as to· that issue were in dispute at the sentencing hearing~ ; ·

(3) ·present a prima facie case· demonstrating that the: · (i) identity of or th~ pB:rticipatl.on in· the crime by the

perpetrator was at issue in the proceedings that resulted in the applicant's conviction and sentencing; and

(ii) DNA testing of the ·specific evidence, assuming exculpatory results, would establish: ,

(A) the· applicant's actual innocence ·of the offense for which the applicant was convicted; · (B) in· a· capital ·case, the· applicant's actual innocence

of the charged or uncharged conduct constituting an ag­gravating circumstance· under section· 9711(d) if the ap­plicant's exoneration of the -conduct" would result in vacating. a sentence of death; or

(C) ·in a capital c~se, a mitigating circumstance under section 9711(e)(7) under the circumstances set forth in subsection (c)(l)(iv). : .

(d) Order.-(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),, the court shall or­

der the testing ·requested· in a motion under subsection (a) under reasonable conditions designed to preserve the integ­rity of the evidence and the-testing process upon a determi­nation~ after review of the record of the applicant's trial, that the: ..

(i) requirements of subsection· (c} have been met;

621

§ 41:18 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(ii):.;evidence,to be tested has been subject.to· a chain of - • 1 , :custody sufficient to establish·that it has not been altered

' in :any. ·material respect; ·and .. ! ::;'. · · (iii) 'motion is' made in a timely· manner and ·for the

purpose of demonstrating the applicant's actual inriocence . and not to delay the executiOn· of sentence or· admjnistra-

622

tion ;Of justice. ·. · : · (2) The court shall not order the testing requested in a

.motiQp. .un.d~r subsection (a). if, after review, .of the record of the_ applicant~s trial, the. ,court de_terµiines that .there is no reasonable possibility that the testing would. produce exculpa-tory ~vj.d~nce that: . . . .. ~ .

· ·• 1 · {i) would· establish the. applicant's .actual innocence of the offense for which the applicant was convicted;

(ii) in· a capital -case, would establish the applicant's actual innocence of; the charged or uncharged-. conduct constituting an aggravating-:circumstance under section 9711(d)jf the ;applicant's. exoneration-of the conduct would result in yacating a sentence of death;. or ; , : (iii) in .a c.apital ~case,. would establish .. a~.mitigating

.. cir<;ums_t~I}ce under. sectio:Q 9Jll(e)(7) .. und~~ the circum-stanc~s set forth in '&libs~'ctiori (c)(l)(iv):· .. ! " l • • •

Ce) 'resting.p~oc~d'1res.~· ·:. 1'. ··• · .~,= ·. '

; , . .(1) . Any DNA testing ordered unqer. this ~.action. shall be conducted by: . '., .

.. . .(i) a.laboratQry mµt~ly_selected;by th.e,Commonwealth and the applicant; 1 . , ~ . · • • .• ,

~ (ii) if the ·commo11w~alth, and .t:Pe ·~ppl~cant are unable to agree on a laboratory,. a_ labor;atory ~elected :by, the court that ordered tile testing; or. .. . , . .· . .

. . . ' . . .. ' ~ '

· (iii) if the applicant is indigent, the testing shall be conducted by the .Pennsylvania State Police .or, at the Pe~npylyaitj~ ~tate Police's so~e discr~tiC?~'. by a laboratory ~e~1~ate~ by the Penn,sy~v~~~ Stf!te .Pohce«, : . (2) The costs of any testing ordered und~:r ~bi$ section

shall be paid: . . . : r •

. (i). by ijle applicant; or . . . :-. ___ . ; · (ii)' in the case of .an applicant .who is ·indigent, , by the

Commonwealt}l of PelUlsylvanht. , . . · · .j.: (3) Testing conducted 'by the: Pennsylvania, State .Po.lice

, shall be carried out in accordance with the. protocols1 and procedures established by the Pennsylvania State Police. (f)_ Posttesting ·procedures.-· · .. _, .. i · : .

PENNSYLVANIA ' '. § 41:19

.(1)_, After the DNA1testing conducted·· under.this section has been completed, .. the applicant :may,. pursuant to section 9545.(b)(2),~(reJating·to jurisdiction and .. proceedings), during

· tq~. 6.(),-d.~y period. beginning· .9.n. the· date on which the. ap­, pli~ant ~s notified·of the t~~t ~~suJts, .petition, t~ .the .. CP_urt.for postconviction relief pursµant t<:>. f?ec.tion. 9548(a.)(2)(vi) (r~lat-ing to eligibility for relief). ·

. . :.C~) ,. U P~~n. receipt of a. peti~qn. fil~d un<ler. paragraph ~ (l), tP,e ·c94l't shijll conejder .t~e·.p~tition, along·. with anY answer filed ·by the· CommQn~e~l~h ~ana ~Jiall? q9nduct: ~ hearing thereon. .; · · -· · · · · · .. · · · ' ·

· .. (S) In any hearing. orita.petition~for·postconviction relief filed: under paragraph· {1), tlie: ctiiut. shall ;determine. whether

. . ,.the exculpatoJJy. evidence .resulting from the. DNA. tes.ting · · conducted· under this. sec.tiorr. would have. changed· ·.the : ) :outcome of the trial .a$ required. by.section 9548(a)(2)(vi)., ·, ,

. (g}. Effect of motion.~'nie filing :of a motion for. forensic DNA ' testing ·pursuant. ;to . sub~ection:;(a) ~.hall have the following ·.effect: : !(. . .. , · , <te.··. . . r. '... · J , ·,

(1) The filing of the motion;sh~·-constitute the applicant~s · · co~ent to provide ·samples of ,bo~ly !luid for use in the DNA

· · . . testing. · . . ~ ·:. : · , ~, . , , · . (2) The data from· ·a·ny· DNA} samples or test :results

obtained-as a result ·of the'. motion may be entered intO law · enforcement :databases; may· be• used in . the investigation of ·other· crimes and may··be~ used;ras:evidence against. the. ap~

.. plicant.in' other cases. '.. i ~ 1 :. . ) ' \" ;. ' '' . '' > · (h) · Definitions.;..l.....As li~¢d in ~s· seqtion, th~ following w~rds and ·phrases shall have ·the·~meanings ·given to them·in thi's subsectit>n: · ·. ·! ·' · • ..

' ; . -, '\ ·• ), •. ,-.1 • --, ,.," I• , •

"Applicant/' The indiviQ.iial who files a motibn under subsection (a)~ ' : 7

• • : ~ ••• • .. • • • • ... , :" • " • • :·. " " i •' , ' • , ;. , If ' ,f.! '

' ' ··.,"DNA." J?eo,xyribo~ticl~ic aci~. . ,-: I • • • ' \ ' • . • • . .

. ' I

:': .... . ·

§ 41:19. Pennsylvania Post· Convicti()n ·.Relief Act ·under· 42 . Pa. Cons •. .Stat~·§§:9541.~to~95~§ 9544-Text·of. ; .. ·

o! § 9544 ' 0 ,: :. '.:.: ':i '• •; "'.''/ ., ,' "'.'I ~::'•, i ' .:• • ';j,i

: . § . 9544. ~ Pr~vioWJ 1itigati01l·:&nd ·,waiver· , : · - . · · · · ' I (~) P,revious, litigation.-For. PQ11>.0se$· of this. subch~pter, a.ii · issue· has been previously litigated if: · · 1

· 'd. . : , , _' :. '• ;,';'' . \\ • ' l I I.'.. l ,,> ;&

(1) [Dele~d.i11;.1995.J ·~ . . . . ... ·1 •••• ~u,:i ,··

· (2) the :highest appellate ;court. -in which the petitioner . could ·liave had ,:review. as .a .matter of right has ·rµled Qn the merits-.ofthe issue; or·.· ·~ .;· t. , .·i:.). ;

623

§ 41:19 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(3) it has been raised and decided·in a proceeding collater-ally attacking the conviction or sentence. ; . (b) Issues waived.-For purposes of this subchapter, an issue

is waived if the petitioner could· have ·raised it but- failed to do so before trial; at trial, during unitary review, on appeal· or in a prior state postconviction proceeding. · · '· ··

§ 41:20 . Pennsylvania Pos~ Co~viction Re~~rAct. under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546-§ 9M4-Issues. litigated or w&ived-Case law : '.· . .

. For case law on litigated and. waived)ssues, see e.g., Com. v. Mason, lSO A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (where claims. of triakcounsel ineffectiveness have already ·been, or could. previously have been, litigated; the only way PCRA petitioner can successfully mount a challenge .to the effectiveness of counsel is to assert a "layered" claim· of ineffectiveness, establishing· first that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ·challenge the effe~tiveness of trial counsel, which requires as a threshold matter that trial counsel was ineffective in the first instance;· to prevail upon a layered ineffectiveness claim .a petitioner must present.·argument on the three prongs of the ineffective-assistance test as to. each relevant layer of representation); Com.· v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2817 (2015) (an· issue has· been waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so· before trial, at trial, on. appeal or in a prior state post conviction proceeding); Com. v. Fears, 624 Pa. 446, 86 A.3d 795 (2014) (an issue raised in a petition for pQ~tconviction relief is waived if defendant coul4 have raised it .pµt failed to do so before trial, at trial, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding); Com. v. Weiss, 622 Pa. 663, 81 A~3d 767 (2013)· (defendant waived post-conviction review of claims that trial court limited' his cross­examination of witnesses, in alleged violation of his right of confrontation and to present defense, in· trial for capital murder, and therefore, also waived claims that defense counsel was inef­fective for failing to object; where :defendant did .not challenge trial court's evidentiaey rulings· in~1fost~sentence motions or on direct appeal, therefore waiving his issue of trial court .error, and he did not assert chB:llenge, tria,1 counsel~' a.lleged error. in this regElrd); Com. v. Chp,mpney, 619 Pa. 627, ·~5 ·A.3d 386 (2013), cert~ denied, 134 S. Ct.' 127;6~ 188 ·L. Eq. 2d 359 (2014) (to be entitled to relief under the PCRA, 'a petitiOner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 'his. conviction or sentence resulted from one ·or more of the· enumerated errors or defects found in.§ 9543(a)(2)~ his claims h:ave not been ·previously litigated or waived, and "the failure to litigate the issue prior to

624

PENNSYLVANIA § .. 41:20

or during trial, .... or on direct appeal could. not have been the result of any rational; strategic or tactical decision· by counsel; an issue is previously litigated if "the highest appellate ·court. in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled· on the merits of the· issue''; an issue is waived if the petitioner could have· raised, it• but failed !to do: so before trial, at trial, during unitary review," on .appeal, or in a: prior· state post­conviction proceeding); Com. v.: Koehler, 614 Pa. 159, 36 A.3d 121 (2012) ~(defendant waived postconviction. claim that Com­monwealth. 'Yiolated his right to substantive. due. process when it allegedly pursued a pr.osecution theory that was irreconcilab.le with the prosecution theo'r.y later pursued in a prosecution witness's· penalty proceeding, where· defendant could have raised the claim on .direct appeal, but failed to do so; defendant also waived postconviction Claim. that trial court ·erred by denying- his motion for continuance. in· capital prosecution,· where clairil was previously litigated .. oli direct appeal, and ·defendant failed to ·al­lege that other grounds 'not addressed on direct appeal. were preserved at trial and on :direct· appeal); Com.· v. ·Walker, 613· Pa. 601, 36 A.3d 1· (2011)-(defendant_was required to raise··claims based on trial counsel's performance at the first opportunity. after he had new counsel; having failed to do this on direct appeal, when he was represented by new counsel, appellant's claims were waived for purposes of postconviction relief); Com~ v.- Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111 (2011) {any -postconviction relief claims of ineffectiveness of trial counsel :not previously raised; and thus waived, may be framed .as "layered claims," under which defendant ;must plead and ·prove· that: (1) trial counsel was -ipef­fective for a certain action or failure to act; and (2) direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial· counsel's inef­fectiveness);· Com. v. Paddy, 609 Pa. 272, 15 A.3d·431 '(2011) ("an issue has·been waived 'if the ·petitioner could· have, raised it·but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on ap­peal or in a prior state post[-]conviction proceeding'"; issue has been previously "litigated if the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review. as . a matter of. right has

· ruled on the merits of the issue; any claims of trial counsel inef­fectiveness that Appellant failed to raise- on· direct appeal have been waived); Com. v. Smith, 606' Pa. 127, 995 A.2d 1143' (2010) (an issue is previously -litigated-if the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review ·as a matter of right has ruled on; the· merits of the issue);. Com. v. Miller, 605 -Pa. l, 987 A.2d 638 (2009) {issue of whether evidence was sufficient .to show that murder victim had been raped ·had been litigated at trial, and thus defendant was not entitletl', in postconviction proceedings; to re-litigate issue using affidavit of medical

625

f·41:20 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

examiner who had testified. on behalf of commonwealth at trial, stating. that he could· ·not opme to ·a:reasonable degree. of: medical certainty .that. the victin:t ,had been· raped,i insofar as defendant sought to introduce the affidavit. to demonstrate that ·the ;evi­dence was insufficient to sustain a~rape ·conviction, the .postconr viction court· was· precluded. ~om addr.essing_the 1issue; Defendant could have· challenged validity. of his :waiver . of j;Q,ry trial .in penalty phase of murder prosecution .and thus 1 defendant1 waived right to litigate tissue .in·posteonvietion ·proceeding.;: defendant raised :no objection,to!allegedly inadequate:jury-waiver colloquies either.. after colloquies· ar on direct appeal .of convi~ion); ~Com.' v. Gwynn, 59() Pa. 398, 943 A .. 2d 9.40 (2008) ('issue', as used· in §§ 9543(a)(3) and 9544(a)(2).refers. to .. the discre.te legal ground that was forwarded on direct. appeal and :would have entitled the defendant. to· relief; , the·: relevant, inquiry when determining whether a. PCRA petitioner is. properly. asserting.a .new ·and distinct.;issue, rather.than simply· re-labeling and reasserting a previously litigated one, :is ·whether the ineffectiveness claim con­stitutes a discrete. legal groun~-. or ,merely .an :alternative theory in supportiof .the· s·ame 1underlying issue·that was raised on direct -appeal; •ineffectiveness ·claims, are, distinct. from '.those claims that .are raised on direct :appeal;: the: former claims challenge the ade­quacy 10f r.eprese.n~~tion .. rather· than the conv.iction of the defendant); Com .. tJ. ·Mallory,, 596,Pa.··172, .941 A.2d. 686 (2008) (defendants,:whosEldirect appeals were litigated prior to Supreme Court's-. adoption of general rule requiring deferral of claims .of ineffective assistance of counsel to: review under PCRA., ·waived claim that their _ _,jury·waivers .were ·not.knowing and voluntary due ~o their trial .counsels' ineffectiveness, by not, raising claim on direct app_eal;. defendants' only. prospect for relief on collatel{al attack was to· s_uccessfully forward a layered ineffective assis­tance_ of .counsel claim);. Com.· v. Rios, 591 ·Pa. 583., 920 A.2d 790 (~007) (death~sentence case; .an. issue has been~"litigated" pursu­ant to.;the ·PCRA· if.the ·highest :~ppe~late court ~n which the petitioner was,entitled to review;as .a matter ofright:has ruled on the merits .of-the issu~; rejection, .. on direct' appeal, of capital mur­der defendant's claim: that-trial counsel.was ineffective for failing to .object to jury:instructions-as .to; accomplice liability '.precluded finding, in PCRA. proceedings; that. appellate counsel was. ineffec­tive for failing to raise :issue);, Com. v.' Reyes, 582.- Pa. 317 ~ 870 A.2d 888 (2005) (issue ofwhether·defendant's incriminati.ng state­ments were inadmissible dµe to alleged Miranda violation was waiv~d, for purposes :of def~ndant's. petition under the PCRA, where issue of trial court ei>or was not raised -Qn direct iappeal; a petitioner cannot obtain postconvictiQn .reyiew of claims that were previ,ously: litiga~d, on appeal by alleging· ine~ective. assis-

626

PENNSYLVANIA·. § 41:21

tance ·Of prior counsel and .(presenting ·new theories., of .r.eliefil;.Com. v.· Spotz, 587 Pa.-1, 896 A~2d 119r (2006). (death sentence case; ineffective counsel claim;· for~ purposes•·ot the. PCRA, an issue has b,e~n .. Pr~yiously litig~ted. and therefore)s. bfil,T~d ~f:.~e.:highest app~Ilate CQ~ in whicli t;he .peti_tjoq.er: ,cqul~ .have had .review, .as a matter,of right has .~ed.,on the ~erits of.the issue or.it.has been raised and deci~ed in. a; proceeding collate;rally attacking the conviction or sentence). . ! .. ~ ·,.:. :• , ! • • • ,, · "!"·

§ '41:21 ! Pennsylvania:· Post Qonvictioti Relief Act .. uncfer ·42 · · , Pa. Cons. Stati.:§§. 9541: to .. 954fl-.;.:§ 9545--Statute of

limitations:' . · · · ~h· ~-' > · 1:: .. ~--. · ·

There jg a ~tatute~:oflimit~tions cin applying· forlreijef unCier the ·Penhsylvariia p·o:RA. 42·P~>'Cdns. Stat. Ann.: '.§.95.)l(b)';(~y ·PcRA petition, inchidirig ja .) second or sq.bsequent pet1~i6n, · sh~l be filed withl'n· 'one year·dfthe· dfite the'judgrilent be'comes ftn'.B.I, unless t,p.e pe~fion aJleS,e~ im..4. ~;iie .p_~tjtiQ~~r proy~~ t}lat:,(1) th~ failure to raise, the claiin preViously was .the:result of interference by government 'officials" (wliibh shall ·-nat'hi81ud~ 'defen~e counsel, whether ·appointed or retained).with the :presentatfonof the· claim in .Violation. of the· Constitution,or laws ·of this·· commonwealth ·or the ;Constitution or· laws' of tlie tJmted:'States; ·(-2)' the facts upon whiC~ :tbs claim: isi·p~edicated were urikriown't<fthe!·petitioll.er and could not have been ascertained. by· tlie exer~ise of :due dili­gence; or (S) the right· asserted is 'a constitutionaf'.riglit'~that was recogniZed by· the~ ·u.s. ·Supreme Cburt or· tlle· Pennsylvania Supreme Court after. the' one· yeaf time ·period. pr~Vided and has been h~~d ·by that court to· apply· retr~ac~iv_e~y;· anY. pe~tio~ inv:ok­ing. one of th~se three ·exceptions s~B.l~ .. l:>e .. fil~~ withijr so·days of the· date th~ ~laim could h~v~ p'ee1~<·preseiit~~; f9r p#rppses of ~e liniitations period, a' judginent becomes' fiiihl at the conclusio1{ of direct reView, incluCung'<liscretionary~.fe~~w

1

tn the_U.$! SuP.reµie Court and .the Peqnsylvania ~upreme C~mrt, .:or ~t the expU!ation oft¥e _for'seeking th~·review); ltW~ ~pO(B)(1), to· (3); P~~-Jt'·Ci:im. Pz:o~.· (a petitipn for postconvictJon .colhi~ral' relief ~uist be filed \irithlll ?ne Y~8!.of the d~te ~~e,~u~~~n\p~c~':i11~~ final, exce1>t"as otherwise provided by statlf te; ,a JU.dgmen~ becomes .~al at _the conclusion of direct reView, which' includes dlscretfonary Jreview i~ th& -µ~s. Sup;r~iµe ~ouft p.J.?.~, t,h~ P~pn~Mlyania.:.Sµpr~me-.Q.~ury, or :.~t tl;le exp_iration .. ~pf tim,e: for. ~eek,~~g .t~e. rey~~w; if the petitioner fails to fil~ a_ petition within the one-year time limit, the action ·may be barred). · '.J , • ' • : ; • • -- • ·

,, .. •. • . • ! ~ J~ • l 1 l .·

~ • • , •• '· •• J

. ... •

§ 41:22 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 41:22 Pennsylvania1 Post Gonviction Relief Act ·under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat~ §§ 9541 to 95~§ 9545-Statute of

. · , limitation~Prison mailbox rule .

If the-PCRA petitioner is a prison illmate acting pro se, the prison mailbox governs; therefore, a PCRA petition ·will be deemed-timely, ·regardless:.of when it reaches the court, if it was delivered to the proper prison official· or- :placed- in the prison mailbox within the one-year time limit.

§ 41:23 Pennsylvania Post Conviction ReUef Act under 42 , . Pa. Cons. Stat •. §§ 9541 to :9546-§ 9545-Statute of

limitations-Jurisdictional requireJQe~t

. The pCRA.'s one-year statute of. ~im)tatiopa has ;been construed .to be a jurisdictionattime ~imitation not· $Ubject tg equitable tolling. When a. petition for postconviction relief is· untiinely under tlie· ·pcRA, the ~o~ iacks juriscliction--.to entertain it. . .

§ 41:24 Pe:nnsylv&ni.a Post Ponviction Relief Ac~ under 42 - Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 954().:...§ 9545-Filing · ·

_ _, . : .' ,· . . . . '

·Under the Pennsylvania PCRA,. the petition· for postconviction relief is filed in the court of common· pleas, i.e., the convicting court. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(~) (original jurisdiction· over a PCRA. proceeding.sJi~l.be in the court of common-pl~as); Rule 90l(B), Pa. R. Crim .. Proc. (petition for postconviction relief shall be filed with the. clerk of the court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced). In Pennsyivania, the, courts of common pleas have unlimite<i. original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings. 42. Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann~ § 9.3l(a). Thus, the remedy is in the_ nattµ",e of corani n~bis. But see Com. v. Menezes, 2005 PA Super 90, 871A.2d-204 (2005) (petitioner convicted in a· mu­nicipal ~ed PCRA petition for. postconvictioil. relief in coun of common pleas, which denied ·relief; on appeal the denial of ·relief was reversed _by superl~r ~ourt). · · . . · · ·

A proceeding under the Pennsylvaiµa :PCRA is commencec;l by filing a petition for: po~tconviction 'relief with the clerk of" the convicting court. ·Rule 901(B), _Pa·. R. 'Qrim~ Proc. The prescribed contents of a petition for postconvfotfon relief under the PCRA are set forth in Rule 90~, ra .. R.- ·Crhn. Proc. . . .

§ 41:25 · ·Pennsylvania :Post· CoD.Viction Relief Act under 42 i ·Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 95~§· 9545-Discovery

\• _· . ' ; ·. : .. \'

No discovery shall be permitted in a PCRA proceeding except upon leave of court with a showing of exceptional circumstances. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(d)(2); Rule 902(E)(l), ·Pa. R. Crim.

628

PENNSYLVANIA §·41:25

Proc. However, on the first counseled· PCRA petition in a death sentence case,' discovery may be permitted after~a showing of good cause. Rule 902(E)(2), Pa. R ·Crim. Proc. Although substan­tive Brady claim_s may b~ c.ogniza'Qle, unde;r.. the Post. Conviction Relief Act '(PCRA), Brady does not:~g~ver~ the,· question, of the scope of discovery under. the PCRA. Com .. p.'. Williams, 624. Pa. 405, 86 A.3d 771 (2014). See aiso Com. v. Flor,.136 A.3d 150 (Pa. 2016) (in a petition filed pursuant to the Pennsylv~rnia · Post Conviction Relief Act, Robert Anthony: Flor alleged ineffective. as­sistance of counsel at his homicide' . trial; after two years of proceedings in the PCRA court~ the Commonwealth moved for the production of documents, requesting "access to ·the complete records" of .trial counsel; this file included some 30,000 pages of documents pertaining to Flor's conviction, sentence,· and direct appeal, and fill.d twelve banker's boxes; at a hearing on the Com-· monwealth's: motion, Flor's PCij,A counsel requested several weeks .to review· the file to' allow removal of material protected by attorney-client privilege or constituting attorney ·work product; the PC~ ·court granted the Commonwealth's, motion and denied PCRA counsel's request for time to conduct 'a privilege review; Flor has filed an appeal from this discovery order; we conclude that the PCRA court's discovery order is immediately appealable pursuant to Rule 313, Pa. R. App'. Proc;; we further conclude ·that the PCRA court abused its discretion·.in affording wholesale discovery without conducting .an issue-specific waiver analysis; accordingly, we vacate the discovery. order, and we remand for ~mmedia~e. inspection of th~ ,file, com~istent with this opinion; discov.~ry in p~stconyiction. proceedings 'is governed. by ~ule 902(E)(2); Pa. R. Crim~ Proc.; the Rµle provi~es that, upon a first counseled petition in a death penalty C!\Se,' no discovery is perniit­ted "except upon leave of court after a shoWing o{ good c'ause; we review a discovery order entered pursuant to. th.ls rule under. an abuse of discretion standard; our deterriiinatio1i of whether the PCRA court had "good cause" to issue -its discovery order under Rule 902(E)(2) inevitably requires an analysis of the attorney­client ·privilege and the work product doctrine; we conclude that the PCRA court abused its discretion by compelling PCRA counsel to deliver to. the Commonwealth the entirety· of trial counsel's file witliout first discerning :whether and. to what extent the file contained· priVileged material and removing. such:material from the file; we' direct the PCRA court on remand to permit .. PCRA counsel the opportunity to determine precisely what portions of trial counsel's file remain privileged in light of Flor's claims; we urge the PCRA court· to ·ensure that this review:· is completed expeditiously- to permit the proceedings to move forward).

629

§ 41:26 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§: 41:26· 1Pennsylvama.Post Conviction Belief Act under,42 Pa •. Con$. Stat. §§ .. 9.541 to 9546--§· 9545-~~d~n.tiary hellri.Jig :· . 1 .·· ·

··In:; proceedings under the· ·Pennsylvania PCRA, a ;petitioner's request for a~ .'evidentia:ry hearing ·tiiust include· a signed certifi­cation as to ·each intended Witness; stating the witness'· name,,ad­dressr and date · of' .. bl.rth and the substance of the proposed testimony, and,shall iriclude·any documents material to that wit .. ness' testimony. 42 'Pa .. Cons. Stat/ Ann~:§ 9545(d)(J.).:•Hearhigs in PCRA proceedings. are:govetned.by:Rule 908, .Pa. R. Crim. Proc. The·petitioner;shall be.permitted;to appear in p.erson at.the he&-· ingl,and ··shall be provided 'an opportunity to .. ihave icounsel. ~ule. 908(c),. Pa,;.R:.-·Crim. Proc .. Special rules .for .hearings in death sentence ca$es, ai;e. set forth ill: Rul.e .909(B),. Pa. ·R, Grim. Proc .... ·

• • • j

§.41:27: :Pennsylvania.Post Con~cj~o~ R~li~t A('t,under i42 ~ Pa. ;Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 tp 9546--§ 954~Stay, of

j 'execii~ion ; . . . . ~. : '!' ' . :, - '. . . ! ;

Stays of execution in. PCRA death sentence cases are governed by 42 Pa~, C~>ns., Stat~· Ann. § 9545(c) ·and Rule· 909(A); Pa •.. R Crim. Proc. . · · '

§·41:28 : Pennsylv&nia Post~Cc)nViction Relief.Act under·142 Pa •. Cons. Stat.-§§:9541to9546-§·954~Text.of

. ' §. 9545 . ·.' . ~ ' " >

§ 9545. . Jurisdictfon and p~o~eedings .) · · · · · · · ' ' ·· · · · ·· .· . (a) Original 'juri~dJctio,f>:.~Origitj,al .'J~.risdic~ion 9ve.r: a : pi'qceedin'.g1.under ~~is.·siibch~pter shhll'b~. i;n' the coµrt .o(~om­mon 'plea~. No. court sh~ll hay~ ~ut;l}.ority to entertfiln a reqµest (or ~~y f9rm :~f reli~f ~ri l an,ticlp~a,ti~P. ~f th~. fili;ng of a. petition µp~err~hi.s 'subc~apter. . . · , .. · "· · . Cb) .'.:'rune for filing .P.etition.~ . : .

. (i) ,Any p~tition \Uid~r this su'Qchapter, including .a s~co~g or; :subsequent. petition:, shall .b,E} filed: within. one ye.ar o( ~he date. the judgmeJjlt becom.~s .fl.rial,. unle~s the petition, ~~g~s and .the. petition~r· proves: tliat~y,. : · · · . ~ 1;.. : . -·, •

(i)1 the failure to.raise.the~claim:previously:was the result , of interference by govermrient·officials with the~presenta­:tion of the claim.in.violation of-the.Constitution or: lawsi.of

. ~ -i . :·:this .Commonwealth or .the Constitution or la:ws. of the

630

. Unitecl States; ...... : , . , . ! : '·

. r(ii) the facts upon. which the claim· is. predicated\ were ; ,unknowni·to the petitioner ,and could not have' been

ascertained.by, the exercise of due. diligenc.e; or:.:.: .. : .. '.

..

I

I PENNSYLVANIA l f ~ ! § 41:28

(iii) the. right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized.-by the Supreme.Court of the United·.States or the Supreme Court of Perinsylva,nia after.the tiin&·period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retr9a~tiy~l~·: , . . ... . .. . . . { .'. . . . . . .

· (~) MY ·P~tit~Q~: lli~okijig .·al), ·exception .·prpvide.d in para~ graph" (1) shall be filea wit!\itj~ 6Q .. ~ay~,5>f,t~~ da~e'.the claim could have been presented. · ~ · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · . (3)' For."purpo~es of this;:subch~pter, ·a j~dgmerit _becomes

. fulal:at. the c9pc~usioh ~fl'dir~ct.·revi~w, including disereti~Ji­' 8ry review hi tl1ie Su¢.ente ·Court of the United States and

· the Supreme, Ccitirt 1df rpehh~ylvania;: tir at the expiration ·of ~e forlseeking'tli~·!rmewt'.· r· 'I;· '_ : ·, o; '• , '. .

. . ·C4). 1For~pm1)0~~~ /,/ thi;$ 'subb)lapter,_':"gove~eµt· officials" sliidl :~o't~ . ~ncl;iid~: a~~~,Iis.e:~. co~nsel.~:· :w 11.e~h~~ . ·~ ppointed' 9~ retained: · · · ' " .' · . · · ' · 1

"· · · · · ·

'. • • ' - -'· ;. \ •• \ :. ' • ~ ·.' ::. • :, : ' ' • • • . -~ - • • ~ • ~ ' ! :

(c) ~tay of.~~~cu~jo~.- " · · . .:. '. · J L .. •• • . . • •

, (.1). No court~shall have1 the. a.u.thority to issue ,a stay of ex­ecution in any.case.~~cept as. allowed under this subchapter ..

· · . ; '(2}. Except %1" first petitions ·filed ·under this subchapter by ·defendants·whoseisentences have· been affirmed on direct ap•

- ... ·peal by th~!Supreme·Courtrbf Pennsylvania between Janu­··:-.: ary 1,.,1994,:and January.Jr; 1996, no 1stay may be-issued un­

less a .petition· for. postconvfotion; relief which meets all the . ··requirements· of. this "subchapter has been· filed: arid -is ··pend­

. ing and the petitioner makes a strong showing of likelihood : ; of suecess on :the merits. :· :·: ·" 1 ·; ·

, · ' · ~3) If a: stay of exec\itiOn ·is :gr~nted; all limitatirins peri6ds ~et· forth ·under 'section~r957W (~elating to· answer to petition), 9575 ',(relatirig ~.to tlis'i>,o.siti'ont,without ·evidentiary hearing)

'. ': .. a~d 9576 (rela:~ing 1 to 1 evid~~ti,ary hearing) shall apply to· the · ·.,litigation·ofthe:petitiem~ .. · '· ,-, ,._, '... ... · ", · .· , : (d)' 'E\ridentiary~ h~al-µig.-.· · ·. ~ : · · ' · ·. · · , . · · ·.

'-•. ~ t t • • ; ' • ~· ' • I.! E ~ -.... . . ':' , ' ' . ' • ' ~ " - ,' ' .

, , . (1)' WJiere a p,etitjone:r"_ :r~que~ts ~n evid.entiacy, :hearing~ . ~h;e p~tit~~~ .~~~ll:ip~ltj~~. ~· s~gne~· cer~ifi~ation .. as to

1 ea~li

. intended mtnese,stating the witness's name; address, date of bfrth and ~l;lb~tahc~· of tes~iD;iqny, ~~: sh~ll ~nclµde any docu­ments material to: "th~t witness's ·t~stiniony. -.Failure to · $ii~sfantihlly 'c'.:pmP,lY W,th the, requireniell,~ of this. ~~agii;tpq

· · shall :r;end~~1 t~e prop~~e.d ~tp~$s's t~st~ony i.~a~~siP,~e. . .(2) NO· di~coYecy,, at 1 any atage of proc.eedings. u:Q.de;r this

. ~sµl;>cpapter,_.shall;be perinit~~d except .upqn ~e~~~ :of :court .with ashowing:of.~c~pijoi;i~ ~cqm~taµces..: . :i' _. , .I· ;

· (3). ~en a ·claim· for. r«ilief is ·based ·on an,~allegation of

681

§ 41:28 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

ineffective assistance of counsel as a ground for. relief, any privilege concerning counsel's representation as to that issue shall be automatically terminated.

§ 41:29 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act· under 42 Pa • .Cons. Stat.·§§ 9541 'to 954~§ ·9545-Statute of limitations-Case law .

~ ' I!

For case law on the Pennsylvania PCRA's statute of limita­tions, see, e.g., Com. v~ Williams,.. ·~1Q5 A.3d. )234. (Pa. 2_014), petition for certiorari fi~ed (U.S. Jq:q.e )~, 2015) (PCRA court is without jurisdiction when a seria}: peti~i9n .is, fileQ.. (as~HJiling it is filed more than one year from the .. date ,tqe judgment.of sentence became final) unless it ~S:lls ~ithin one o.f three li:Qiited excep­tions; in all PCRA petitiOns, the_burden·i~ ari·the PC:a.A petitioner to establish an- exception· to the ·one..:year junsdictiorial time-bar, before the court can act); Com. v. Cunningham, 622 Pa. 543, 81 A.3d 1 (2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2724·, 189 L.'.Ed. 2d 763 (2014) (section 9545(b} recognizes that· ;new·· constitutional rights (state or federal) may come: into existence· after a sentence is final, and indeed, after a defendant's right· to ·PCRA review has been exhausted; statute allows new._.constitutionaLrights to be vindicated, but only after the Court announcing, the .new right has also held that the right operate~ retroactively:~ "the right as­serted is a constitutional right, that ,was recogni~ed by the Supreme Court of the United· States-or the .Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period previded in this 'section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively"; . this safety valve ,for yi:qdica~iop. of new and r~~r,oactiv~ rights ,is logically limited to pronouncements from the two. courts of l.ast resort that can recognize new rights· and ip.~e~, -cl.ear that. the cow:t of last resort ~nouncing the. new right sq.~uld. also iss:ue the holdiµg on the retroactivity of the new rig); Com . .-.'f.!· Ali, 624 Pa. 30~, 86 A.3d 173 (2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 7Q7,.190;L. Ed. 2d, •39; (2014) (time limits for filing petitions under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) are jurisdictional; 'in nature, implicating a court's very power to adjudicate a contr~versy; pei?-qd for fiµng ~ petition under the PCRA is· not subject to· the doctrine _of equitaole. tolling; instead, the tiine for filirig a 'PORA petition can be eXtended only if the PCRA pernlits it to be 'exte~dec;l, ~.e., by operation of ~me of the· statutorily enumerated exceptfons to the PCRA time-bar; capital murder defendant failed t'o e~stablish that he suffered from mental incompete~cy during· proceedings ·on his initial peti­tion for postconviction relief, so ·as to qualify his second such peti­tion to be considered under newly-discovered evidence exception to time bar set forth in PCRA; .defendant 'acted prose during

632

. I

PENNSYLVANIA §:41:29

proceedings on his initial petition; and PCRA court had deemed him competent. to prepare his appeal of denial of his· initial' peti­tion, and ·opinion of expert on which. federal . defenqer relied. in raising newly-discovered evidence exception :to· time bar on defendant's; behalf, that defendant was incompetent during initial proceedings, was extrapolated! exclusively from past records and a brief.personal·interview..conducted: 15. years earlier, and was contradicted by two recent, interview~based ·medical reports); Com. v .. Edmiston, 619 Pa. 549,·65·A.3d 339-- (2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. ·639,- 187 L. Ed. 2d. 423, (2013) (time requirements established by· the PCRA . are jurisdictional iil nature; -conse­quently; Pennsylvania· court$ may not entertain untimely»PCRA petitions; it .is the appellant's bt1rden to .~llege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies; . whether Appellant has car­ried his burden is a. threshold· inquiry prior to considering the merits of any claim; statutory qO-day rule requires a petitioner to plead .. and prove that the· information. on which his claims are based could not have ,been obtained earlier despite· the exercise of due diligence; for purposes of exception to 'timeliness require­ments for postconvictiori. relief petition applicable if the facts upo~ which the claim is ·predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, to constitute "facts" which were .unknown to a petitiOner and could not ·have .been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, the information .must not be of1public record ~nd must not be facts that were previously known but· are now .pre­sented through a newly;discovered source);· Com. v. Jones, :617 Pa. 587, 54 A.3d -14 (2012) (timeliness requirements of. Post Conviction Relief Act apply to all PCRA petitions, regardless. of the nature of the individual claims raised therein); Com. v. Porter, 613 Pa. 510, 35 A.3d 4 (2012)' (Brady claim raised in Post Convic­tion Relief Act petition filed more .than 20 years·· after trial was untimely;. where :capitaL defendant offered~ no explanation of why, with the exercise of idue diligence,. the :information could not ·have been· obtained earlier; witness's statement was-available upon the exercise of due diligence· for a .generation, and certainly could have been ·discovered ·more. than 60 days prior to the filing of defendant's Brady petition); Com~ v.: Travaglia, 611 Pa. 481, 28 A.3d 868 (2011} (defendant's claim that his· prosecution for mur­der in the first degree should have been barred 'as a ~result; of guilty plea to another murder because both murders were: part· of a single criminal episode. was ·subject to-'time limitations of:the Post Conviction Relief. Act; claim· was :a: guilt phase claim);, Com. v. Watts, 611 Pa. 80,' ·23 A.3d 980 (2011) (when a petitioner claims he.was .abandoned on appeal-by form.er counsel,1he inay'success­fully invoke section 9545(b)(l)(ii) if he can establish that the facts

633

§ 41:29 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND ·RELIEF

upon which his· claifu is predicated were· unknown tQ him and could not have been discovered,'. through- the texercise of due dili~ gence; any cpetition: .inv'oking. the unknown facts ·exception must be filed within. 60. days of the date on. whiah the' claim first could have ibe·en presented; ··a.judiciat .opinion· does not. qualify as a previously ·unknown: ·"fact~ capable ·0£ triggering'. the ,timeliness ex~eption codified·iat·sectfoni 954'5(b)(l)(ii)); Common~ealthi v. Albrecht, 606 Pa. 64, 994 ·A.2d 1091.G2010) (appellant's judgment became .final when 1the United States Supreme.Court ended: ap­pellant's direct appeals: by denying· his petition for Writ of certio­rari; appellant filed. this PCRA .petition inore than ·21 years; later~ it is the appellant's· burden· to allegei and prove that ·one of the timeliness,,exceptions applies; additionally, any petition filed.pur~ suant. to any: of these; timeliness' exceptions must be: :filed within 60 days of when:the petition eould: have oeen presented; the· :60~ day rule1 r.equires .·a i petitio~er :to J plead and prove that the· inf or• mation.oil., which :he relies· could nut. have -been obtained earlier, despite·the exercise·of due diligence; appellant did not state when he ·discovered: the· Commonwealth allegedly withheld witness statements arid physical-evidence· or.· when he learned the Com':' monwealth's.arson evidence•:was.allegedly unreliable;· as appel­lant did .. not explain when.he first learned ofthese;facts: he has failed to meet.his burden of showing.he brought his claim within 60 days·· of when :the .petition could have been presented;. further appellant failed to show any .of the conditions ofhis incarceration were .illegal, as.required to meet the :governmental iri.terference exception to PCRA's· timeliness ·requirement; goverinmental interference must yiolate Uriited States"or Pennsylvania Consti­tution ~r-laws); Com. ·v. Ligons, 601Pa~:103,.97l.A.2d 1125 (2009) (absent invocation·.:of one of the :three 'statutory exceptions to the timeliness requirement- set forth 'at 42 .. Pa.C.S. ·§ ·9545(b)(l)(i) .to · (iii), it:would be. virtually:impossibleJora.petitioner,to ever· file a S(3rial petition rajsing. PCRN,~ounsel's iheffectiveness. in .a timely manner ias: his firsit,PCRA petition :wp:Uld not ··be disposed of before the· one-year statutory .filing period expires); Com. v. Hackett, 598 Pa~:35{),:956 A.2d 978·(2008) (this,Court·has repeatedlyheld:that the: tilile.Jimitations ;pursuant- :to· the PCRA amendments · ar.e jurisdictional; jurisdictional· time limits go to a court"s right or competency .to. ·.adjudiCate a' controversy; we have. further held that the5 PCRA :oonfers uo authority·· upon this :rn:mrt-to fashion· ad 'hoc equitable exceptiens' to ·the PCR.A.time-.bav in addition to those exceptions expressly delineated· in· the A¢t); Com~· v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (2007)' (exception to' the one-year time limitation for filing postconviction· petition, ·m-hen .facts ·upon which; the claim .is predicated were unknown .to petitioner and could not have been ascertained by due. 4iligence, does :-not require

634

PENNSYLVANIA ·~§-41:29

that· new facts: constitute exculpatory :eVidence'..that would· have changed ·the .outcome·:of the' b;.al;~defe:ndant".did-inot waive ... ap­plication of exception to.1the one-year-.itime · limifatic;m~ for. filing second, ~postconviction.·petition; · exception~.to -the. one~year, time limitation when facts·upon whichthe.claim·!ls.predicated were unknown to· defendant. and ··could·mot l µave been ascertained by due· diligence does not;:tequiTe.~same; showings as acBrady v. Maryland, ·873 u~s.: 83; 83. s. ··Ct.: ~1194,· 10' L . .- Ed .. 2d 215. '1963), claim); Com. v. Brooks; 20Q5 :PA·Super 185,:87& A.2d 1141'.(2005) (·PCRA~s .. one-year tiine ·bar ·does-.,not apply.itO :motions for the 'per­formance· of forensic DNA testi11g :under the , postcorlvict~on. DNA testing-, statute; :rathert,.' after Jl>NA testing has beea completed, the· applicant.may, 1within 60 ,days .of receiving the:test·~results,

· petitiOn. to the court for; postconV:ictioJt .relief :on -the·, basis -of after­discovered .evidence; ani ·exception; to the! one•year~ statute of limi­tations); .Slutzker v. · Johnson, 393 · F .Sd·, 3-73 (8d Cir. 2004) (the tiine limits· .under .42 ;Fa.- Cons.Stat. :Ann.;§ 9545(b) are manda­tory and jurisdictional .in' nature·, and the: Pennsylvania PCRA confers'. rio authority upon .·any ;Pennsylvania coU:rt to. fashion· ad hoc equitable exceptions• to; the ··PCRA time•bar. in· addition· to those exceptions,expresslydelineated in_the Act); Com.·v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d.1264 (2007) {Com. -v. Chester, 586 Pa .. 468, · 895 A.2d -520 (2006) (death: sentence case;, under the amended PCRA, all! petitions, including a; .second or; subsequent petition, must1 be filed within one year of the date that·the petitioner~s judgment became .final, unless 1one of the .three statutory· excep­tions applies; the PCRA's :t~e :"I·estrictions. are jurisdictiOnal in nature; any petition invoking one of. the· exceptions must be filed within .60 days; of the date·1that the· claim ·could have been pre~ sented); Com. v. Crews,'1581.Pa.:A5, 863,A.2d .498 (2004) (death sentence case; the PCRA's time restrictions are· jurisdictional;. ~ PCRA court· lacks jurisdictj.oil to ·address the claims. raised ,in, an untimely petition); _Com., v. 'Derrickson, '2007 PA ·Super.:116, 923· A.2d .466. (2007) (under: the~PCRA;,all.p.etitions. must· be µled within one year of the date ·that tl:ie petitioner's judgment became final, unless one of three statutory :exceptions ·~pplies;. the PCRA's time restrictions.ar,e jurisdictional in nature);· Com~- v. Boyd, 2007 PA Super 125,.923 A.2d;513~(2007Hif a PCRA.~petition is untimely filed, a .court, lacks jurisdiction: . .to: address·: the claims contained therein;: any petition.invoking.an exception to the·PCRA's timing provisions must: be filed within. 60- days of the· date: the claim' first ·could have been pres~nted); Oom~ v.: ·Wilson~ 200.6 PA-8uper;3l3, 911 A~2d .942 (2006) (one-year limitations period for filing post~ conviction petition· ·began' to .. run, when -90-day period. for seeking certiorari review with· U.S-.~.Supreme. Court· expired; if a postcon;. viction.petition.is' untimelydiled, ·a;colWt lacksjurisdictionito ad-

635

§ 41:29 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

dress the.-.claims. contained.th~rein;. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(b)(l); however·, provi(J.es:·_three excepted circumstances wherein. a: petition: that is filed in art •untimely maniler· may b~ considered -by the court);: Com~ v. Dickerson,· 2006 PA ,Super 115, 900 A.2d 407 (2006) (generally, ·a ·petition for relief under .the PCRA. must be filed within ·one year .of .the. date the judgment-:is final unless the petition alleges, and the ~petitioner proves, that an .exception to· the time for filing the petition· is met; .the ti.rile limitations set forth in the PCRA are jurisdictional, and a PCRA court lacks jurisdiction ~to address·the claims raised ·in. an untimely petition; a PCRA petition invoking one :of these statu­tory exceptions must be filed Within 60'days of the date the claims could have been presented; where the petition is untimely, it is the petitioner's burden to ·plead in the petition .and prove that one :of the exceptions applies;- here, petitioner argues .that· his pe!" tition is timely and, 1therefore, should be addressed on the.merits under the governmental· interference exception);· Com .. v~ Brooks, 2005 PA Super 185, 875 A.2d 1141 (2005) (PCRA's one-year time bar does not apply to motions for the . performance of forensic DNA testing under the: p·ostconviction ·DNA testing statute; rather, after DNA testing has.beencompleted, the applicant may, within. 60 days of receiving the test results, petition to the court for postconviction relief on the basis of after-discovered evidence, an exception. to the one-year statute of limitations; petitioner can­not use the postconviction DNA testing statute to raise extrane­ous issues not related to DNA testing in .an effort to avoid the one-year time· bar on filing PCRA .petitions; for .purposes of the one-year statute of limitations for petitions seeking relief under the PCRA, petitioner's conviction became final 90 days after our state. supreme court affirmed his sentence, when time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with .the; U~S. Supreme Court expired); Com. v. Greer, 2004 PA Super 3,,866 A.2d ·433 (2005) (any PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, subject to three very limited circum­stances; essentially, a PCRA petition must be filed· within one year from· the date judgment of sentence became final; this timeli­ness requirement is applicable to. all PCRA petitions, including second and subsequent ones; moreover, the timeliness of.a PCRA petition implicates the jurisdiction of the .court to address the merits of the petition); Com .. v .. Beck,' 2004 PA Super ·133, 848 A.2d 987 (2004) (the timeliness·. requirements of the PCRA.-are jurisdictional time limits and are mandatory; having found appel­lant's petition to have been filed in· an untimely manner., we lack jurisdiction. to address the merits· of the·-.arguments contained therein); Pace v.· DiGuglielmo, 544:U.S. 408, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 161 L. Ed. 2d 669 (2005} (.the Pennsylvania .PCRA replaced the

636

l'ENNsYLVANIA § 41:29

Pennsylvania PCHA in 1988 and was amended in 1995 to include, for·.the first time, a statute of limitations for state postconviction petitions, with three exceptions; Rule 904, ·Pa .. R. Crim. Proc., which is entitled "Initiation of·Post-Conviction Collateral Proceed..1 ings," lists two mandatory conditions. for the filing of a PCRA petition: (A) the petition ~shall" be filed.within the time limit, and (B) the proceedings "shall be initiated by filing" a verified pe­tition ·and ~3 copies with the clerk of the court in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced;" ·the natural reading is that (A) is every bit as much ofa "condition·to filing" ·as (B)); Com. v. Chester, 586 Pa. 468, 895 A.2d 520 (2006) (death sentence case; .the PC~'s time. restrict~ons are jurisdictional in nature); Com ... v. Wilson, ·2006 PA Super 313, 911 A.2d 942 (2006) (oile­y~ar limitations p·eriod for filirig postconviction petition began to run when 90-day period for s'eeking certiorari review with U.S. Supreme Court expired;,.If·a ·postco.nViction petition is untimely filed; a .court lacks juris9ictfon ·to adW-:ess the claims contained therein; 42 Pa.· Cons.· St*t. Ann. § ~5~5(b)(l), however, provides three excepted citcun.u;tances wherein' a ·petit~on that is filed in an untimely manner ma,y be considered by . the 'court); Com. v. Liebensperger, 2006 PA Super· ~ 18, 904 A.2d 40 (2006) (a~ order granting, denying, dismissing, or othe.rivjse·finally disposing of a petition for postconviction collateral relief shall cons'titute B: final order for purposes of a'.ppeaI; an appellant has ~ .. Perio4· of 3.0 days after the entry of an order during which ail appeal .c;m'that ·.order can be' ta~en; however, postconyfotion relief court's' order' f~iiling to inform defendant ofhjs right to app~al i~s decisio.n, and of time within which that appeal was required to. be. t~ken disallowed· court from quashing· appeal, notwithstaiiqing defencJant's. 49 day delay in filing notice. ·of appeal;. be.cause· the· time liniitatioris established by the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature,· a court lacks jurisdiction to address the claims raised 'iii an untimely pe­tition); Com. v. Rojas, .2004 PA Supe~ 163, 87 4 · A.2d 638 · (2005) (sentence for drug offenses became ·final, for purposes. of 10ne"'!year limitations penod for filii;i~ postconviction motion,. wh~~. 30 ~ay period expired for defendant to seek state supreme corirt 'review of dismissal of direct appeal); Com. v. Moss, 2005 PA Super 111, 871 A.2d 853 (200~) (the· thte~ exceptions to the one-year statute of limitations· must be specifically pleaded or they may not be invoked; the pronouncement in Blakelj·v~ Washington; 542 U.S. 296, 124' s. Ct. 2531, 159·L. Ed. '.2d 403,:6· A.L.R. Fed. 2d 619 (2004) does not constitute an:' after.-recognized constitutional right for purposes· of the after-recognized constitUtional right exception to the one-year limitations. period); Com.· v. Hughes, 581.Pa. 27 4, 865 A.2d 761 {2004) (death sentence.case; the PCRA.provide the exclusive avenue for achieving ·collateral relief, embracing all

637

§ 41:29 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

. other :similar remedies;· seven-year ·delay 'in filing :petition. did not justify dismissal Without a hearing; here,· the PCRA petition was dismissed on timeliness; grounds without a hearing~ and 42 .Pa. Cons·. Stat. Ann~ § 9543(b} speci~oally precludes a dismissal based upon ·delay :absent'. ·a he1aring; · evidentiary :hearing: ordered on whether counsel was· ineffective ·at· penalty phase)~ ·

• ' ••.• 't ' ·:" ,·•::. • •

§ 41:30 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to ·9546-§ 9545-- -'Jurifldiction~ase law. '··

·.~or ~ase- ~a~ on. jurisdictio~. -~n.. _ ;FCRA ~i:oc~e~ing's: see e.g., Commonweaith y. Albrecht, 606 'Pa. 64, 994 A,2d 1091 (2010) (all PCRA petition~"in~lu~ng a :second. or subs~qu~nt ·petitjon, sha~l be filed within one year: Qf th~ q~te~ the Jud~eD:t. becoµies finaj.; th~ PCRA's .titqe. restric#oiis are. jurisdictic)p.al ·~n~:nature; if a P~~ p~titiOn is· untimely, ;neith~r th~· s.µpreme. Cour~ nor ·ti~e tri~l ·court. has juris~cti,on. o:ver tlie petiti9n;· ~thoµt jurisdictiQn, the- court .simply does ~ot ~ay<( th.~ 'legal aµtpp#ty

1'tp ad~~ss 'th!e

S.\lbstantive claims); Com~ v~ ligon$; 601 Pa. 10.a,. 971 A.2d 1125 (2.9Q9) (this .qoui;;' does not sit' as a _cpUrtl'of original jurisdictidn on ·pcM ~ppeals, but a~ 'an aP,pella·~e coµrt who~e duty is _to r~view t_b;~. '.ttja1-l~yel ,proceedings .,l~elow; 'it. is . a. settled . aD:d salutary· principle of app~llate reVie:w that ·we' ~~11 . not· reach clai~s. that :we!e' not r~ised. below; . ~he issue pi:~servatioµ principle 'app1ie~ no less .. on P.Q~ appeals); Q.om. v. Ho~me~, 593 ra. 6Q.1, 933. A.2d 57 .. (2007) (ttj~~ .~QUrt's ord~;t\ iiµposing a ~ew sert,ten~e. of .iric~rce~atiori (>.~, .~efen4ant for a violation. of proba­tion .even'. t~Qugh,..ptobatio~' )Vas .~~veJ;" imposed was. a patent an4 obYiqus:~rro~, ~J.ld-'tbiu~'tli~J. court had iriherent 'power'" to correct ~h~ niistak.~ d~$p,ite~the ap~eilce· _of traditiohaljutj.sdict~.Qn; .Com. v." Wharton;· 5~4~~~·570;-~~~;.f\.2d1~20,(2005) (death sentence ~a~~; if a:post'con'.Vi¢tiori petition is untiiriely, this -court' has no Jurisdi~tion '9ver. the petition; it is well settled that allegations of ill~ffect1v~'i'ass1s~anc~ -~f..cq~s~l .Will. nqt*;o~ercom~. the jurisdic-ti9hal" tiµleliness reqili~mehts of ~e PORA). ; -

r ' ' i • • t • • ! _ ~ ,• . ' · • ' : ~ • .

§l4~:3.1 : l .,~~sylvania Po~~ C~llytctio~ ~~li~f_Act Wider 42 · Pa. Cons. Stat,§§ 9.541to95~§_9546- · · . . il~~~g~p11s~ law.· · · ~- · '.~ · ·· · · ·

'- \'.' • - • ;·, • "4. : .• ,_;, ', ,' t'.

·Eor case law on evideil.tiacy·hearingsiri.PCRA proceedings, see e.g., Com~, v. Porter(613'-Pa • . 510; 35: A.3d A (2012) (trial: court considering __ Atkins, ·claim-·r.aised·.·in capital defendant~s ·Post Conviction ·.Relief :Act petition is. not obliged. tO hold .a l;learing un­less ~an adequate proffer :has .. been made conce:rning mental retardationi :and an issue of·mateJial faet.is determined to· be pre-

638

.I PENNSYLVANIA . ' § 41:32

sent); Com. V~·Thomas, 615 Pa .. 477,. 44'.A3d 12. (2012} e'[U]nder Pa. R. ·Crim .. P .. 909!B), appellant is not .. automatically entitled to an ·eViidentt~ he11Jliug ,on his. ,PORA.. pe,tition .. He only r~ceiy;~d the hearing: beca1,1se! .tl:iis C.o~rf· gr~te4 l)im o~~; which. h~ .~ow attempts ,to. m9rpA into a ~peedy, ~ri~l .:9la:in;i<,Bec~u~~ appellant h~s no un~erl~t;>rg. qpnstitution~I right to.,~· ;evi(lentiary; h~¢ng ~~ ~ta~~ :postconyj,ctio~ :l?l:'O~~~p.ipg~,, h~ .has po ~ons~itutio,9.:~ tj~~t to ms1st on a speedy tnal m these proceedings."); Com ... v. Clark, 599 Pa._ 294, .961- A.2~ SQ (200S) (t];lere is no requirenient'_t:Iiat ·the PCRA .cotirt h~l4 -~ 'h~~ng 01f every is~u~ _fp~tieyoner. z:ai~es; t;h.e rules mandate '.a· hearing only on genui,tie 1.lSS'Ues ·of matenal fact; the' PCRA: ·provides .that 'where! a ·peti~fori~r Z.equests. an ·evfqen­!iary-. hearing, thei fpetition~ shall. include a' sign~·q.- certi~c·atio:ri as to each intended witness ·stating the wi-triess's 'name; address, date of birth and .. s~bstance of testimop.y and shall il)..clu~e ~ny documents materia:l.to-',that .. witness'Ei testim9ny);. Com~ v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501, 913 i\J2d · 220 (2006)-·{death·-'sentence· case; hearing ordered on defendant's claim of ineffective ·assista-rice'- of counsel with r~sp~ct ~P· mitigation! ,evidence at ,penal~y. ph~se); Co1!Jt.1 v. Mi~ler, 5S5 Pa~ 1~•, ;ass A.2d 624 (20Q5) :(deat~ sente~ce, ease; t~fil CQ~~rs d~1ter;miµ.,1;1ti9~ ~j~}ioµt . ey~dent~~.r¥ he8:ri-ng_.. tli~t dEl(eQ.i!~t. :was, ;mentally .re~d~d .was ~pqse o(discret1on); Co,,,_. v._Spotz, 58~, Pa. 207, . S70 A.2d 822. (20.05) (ineffective. c.ounsel C~aim;; pearing Q:Q.:· P.eti~i~ for;. !P~~tcoqvfc~~OP; r~~e;f. was. req~ecl ~th resp~c~ to . iss,ue~-of ,\Y~her P,e~~_ns~. ~ouns~l had. lacked. r.ea .. sonable basis for failing to obj~~t: to prosecu~or's. ~licitatiori or testimony from defendant that. speCifically concerned. defendant's inte~l!lction~ _witltp9lic~ fo~lRwlltg hi.s. west);. qom. v .. Diaz, ~-~06 ~ASpP.er}.3~0,.:.~.~~. A.2.~ ;S'U (~Op6~~(I?.~tit~o~r ~~~ eqti~led to ev-1dent1ary heanng to allow· po~tco.nxicqon. .~p,y.rt~ tp W!ilie ,necessary factual and credibility determinations in light of defendant's claim· that . his ·guilty plea wa$·: based· on two misunderstandiiigs which ren~e~ed ~s ·plea .invollintatyJand unkno~ng). · ~, ·:. " ; ·

._ • ' • i - ~ : ' ' : ' ·~~. ! . ~ ... ,. ~-; ~ . l f ~: < • ~

§ 41:82: .. Pennsylvania•Post Coilvi'ctioil'ReliefAct 11nder 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541.to 93~§ '954~Appeals·:

An ~i:der . ~f .the ~ourt of. ~om~o.n pl.e~~ .gr&ntin~,. · denyjng,

:~~\11!fi :!r!t~~\~~~1~~tf~Pio~0:u%~::~r~i~~~:i: 910, Pa. R. Crim. Proc. A final order. granting p6stconvi_ction relief under the PCRA to a person ·:-sente"nced· to~ 'death shall be directly appealable, to the Pennsylvariia :Supreme. Court. 42 Pa. Cons. SJ;at. Ann!:.§§ 722( 4:)~ 9546(d:); iA. final )o~der ~denying· relief under the PCM to a person,sentenced .to:·death..shall not· be reviewable in.the Superior·~Court: but;shall be·reviewable in· the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but only ·by a_petition. for allow- ·

639

STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

ance· of appeal granted by· that court. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9546(d). In all other cases the-appeal of an~arder of the cotirt of common pleas granting or denjring PCRA relief is to the Superior Court. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.§ 742 (superior court has exclusive appellate jUrisdiction of all appe~s from final orders of the courts of common pleas ·except for the classes' of appeals over which the state supreme ·court or the commonwealth court has exclusive jurisdiction). · ; · .

:Where the·. conviCting. ~our~, gr~nts PORA relief l.n a death sentence case,.the .C.OillDl.onwealth, if it seeks to ~ppeal,.niust file a notfoe of' appeal "witµ, the clerk of the court of common pleas within 30 .days. after the entry of the orP,er. fr9m which the appeal is taken. Rules. 902, 903(a), Pa. R. App. Pro~;

§ .41:33 ·· Pennsylvania .Post Conviction)l~lief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546-§ 9546-Appeal­De~th sentence cases

\

Death sentence cases ;where the court of· common pleas denies PCRA relief and· the petitioner seeks to obtain appellate review iri the Pennsylvania· Supreme' Court are governed ·by Rules 1112 through 1123, Pa. R. ·App. Proc. Allowance of an appeal from 'the final order denying relief xnay be sought by filing a petitionfor al­lowance of appe.al with the; Prothorio.taty of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court within 30 ·days of the: entry· of the order. Rules 1112(a), 1113(a), Pa. R. App. Proc. · ! · ·

f • : J; '

§ 41:34 Pennsylvania Post ·co~Victfon Relief Act under 42 ; Pa. Cons.: Stat. §§;9541to9546:--§ 954~Appeal- · Filing 'in noncapital case· · · · · · ,

• ' • ' • 'f • . ! : "l ~ ' ' • •

In a noncapital case, an appeal from the :final order· of the court of common pleas. granting or denying PC.RA relief may. be taken to the Superior Court by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the court of common. pleas· within 30 days ,after. the. entry of the order. Ru~es 902, 903(a), Pa.-R. .i\.pp. Proc.

§ 41:35 Pennsyivariia .,~st Co~victiOn ·Relief Act under 42 · Pa. Cons:· Stat~· §§!9541 'to 9546-§. 9546-Text of

§ 9546 •·. ·.. . ! ' i ! • i .

§ 9546. Re~ef and~Qrder (a) General rule.----Ifthe coµrt :fules in favor~ofthe petitioner;

it shall order appropriate relief and issue.supplementary orders as to rearraignment, retrial-, custody; bail, discharge, correction

. of sentence or ·other matters that, are. necessary and proper. . (b)- [Deleted in 1995.) .· ; · · · · ,

640

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:3'7

(c) [Deleted· in 1995.] ,., · :{d) Review of' order. in death penalty cases.-Ail order under

this subchapter granting. the petitioner firial relier in a case in which the death penalty has been imposed shall be.directly ap­pealable by the Commonwealth to the Supreme ·Court pursu­ant to its rules. An order under this sqbchapter denying a ' petitioner final. relief in a case in which the death penalty has

· -been imposed.shall not be reviewable in the Superior, Court but . ·shall be reviewa}1le only by petitiori for allowance of appeal .to .. the Supreme Court. : .. · · , · .

·' . -.. ,.:

§ 41:86 Pennsylvania Post· Conviction .Relief:Act under 42 -Pa. Cons. Stat. §§' 9541 to 954&-§ 9546--Case law

For case law on § 9546, _se~ e.g., Com. v. Grosella, 2006 PA Super 166, 902 A.2d 1290 · (2006) (it· is well-settled that_ an ac­cused who is deprived entirely of his right of· direct appeal by counsel's failure to perfect an appeal is per se without the effec­tive assistahce of counsel,: and is ·entitled to reinstatement of his ·direct appellate dghts; however; reinstatement of direct appeal rights· is not the proper remedy when appellate counsel perfected

. a direct appeal but simply failed to raise certain claims); Com. v. Clark, 2005 .PA Super 356; 885 A..2d 1030 (2005) (petitioner's pe­tition for postconviction relief implicated legality of his sentence, and thus denial of that petition was. appealable as of right, where defendant argued that he was denied· a. statutorily prescribed credit fo:r pretrial tim~ se,J:Yed). ,

.1:

§,41:37 Pennsylvania Post Conviction R~lief Act under 42 : · , : . ·Pa • .Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546-Pennsylvania

. Rule:of Criminal Procedure 900-Text ·

Chapter 9 ·of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 900 through'910, ·Pa. R. Crim. Proc.),· which procedurally implements the Pennsylvania PCRA, provides:· ·

Rule 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases . (A} rhe rul~s.in- Chapt~r .9,:apply to capital,and noncapital

cases wider the Post Conviction nelief A.ct, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 to 9546, as ~ended by Act 1995~32, (SSi}.. .

(B) Notice in Death Penalty Cas~~. In aJI death. penalty cases upon the Supreme Court's affirmance of the judgment'of a death sentence, the Prothonotary shall include ·in the mailing

· required by Pa.RAP. 2521 (Entry of Judgment or Other Order) · the following information concerning the Post Ct>Iiviction' Relief

, · Act and the proced1,1res under Chapter 9 ofthe Rules· of Crimi•

641

§,41:37 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES· AND RELIEF

nal Procedure. "Parties" as used in Pa.R.AP. ·2521 shall include tµ~ Q.~fe,:nq~nt, the, defe:pdapt's, ~~u~sel, and tl).~;,~t~qrn,ey for .th~.Co~9n~ea1th for t;he puryo~es,~f this rule. ·.:· .. , . 1 ••

. . · . (1) Apetition· for ·post-conviction. collateral relief mlist be · , filed·within·one year of,the'date ,thejudgment becomes final,

e~cept as otherifise~provided by statute. , : (2) As· provided. :in •42~ Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3),. a judgment. becoine·s· ·final at the,:conclusion of'·direct ·review, which

·includes 'discretionary review in the Supreme Court of' the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review. .

(3) (a) .. If the: defendant. fails to-dile. a petition.·Within. the ,, .. ~ one.~year .time- limit, .the acti:on may .be. barr.ed. See 42 . . Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) .

. (b) Any is~qes that c~uld hav.e' been raised. in the post­. . . convictio~ proee.e~g, but were n()~, ·may be w¢v:~d .. See 42 · . -Pa.C.S ... § 9544(b).· . __ . . - ·, . . " . . . .

~ • i : , ' ~ • .. • I ' • ' _' - • :

1. ( 4) Pursuant .to .nule. 904 (Appointm.ent of C.011nsel; in . : F.o~a Pauperis), the ttial judge wiU appoint new-.counsel for

·) : : · .. the purpose _o( post-convictjon ·®ll1;ttera1 r~view, unless: · . 1~·· .. :·:

·. (a) the defendant.has· elected to proceed pro-se-or waive ·post-conviction- collateral proceedings,. and the judge findS,

., · . . after a colloquy on: the record, that the· defendant· ds .,.~, competent and the defendant's~.election is 'knowing; intel-

\ · ~-:. · ;ligent,iand,voluntary;. , .· · · : . (b) the defendant requests 1continued represehtaticinby

original trial counsel or direct appeal counsel, and the judge·;finds~:.·afte:t ·a: colloquy ·on:the record, that :the petitioner's electiOn constitutes a.knowing; intelligent, and voluntary :waiver" of a :claim that counsel was ineffective; or

. , . . (c) . the; judge finds, after a c.olJ.pquy on the re.cµ~p., .·that .... · .the:. def~ndant Q.as e~gageq. co~m~el w.ho has, ent~r.ed,i or

will promptly ·enter,. an-appearance ~or the c.ollateral review proceedings. · · · · - · · ·' , · ··· · · 1 ' '

t I ·~·1.: • . "2 • ;.•,:~,J.- -· ·;_;,._''~.: ~ . : , . :

§ 4'f:ss Pennsylv~~ ~~~t·~onVictioh, ReU~t ~~t~de~ 42 Pa. Cons.·~~~~~,§.§ 9541 t~ ~5~~~e~~yly~··· · .. Rule of Cl:'iJDin&l Procedure 9~().....;Case la~

~ , , •, , • , _ 1 ' ~ I. ,_ , • • • ~- • . ,- _ . , 0 • t •, , 1 • , • •• : ~ , ~ ~ • I f · I ,' ~

Fpr. c~s.e. law on ~ule. 90.Q,. see e~g., Com. -~· J:/~vis,_ 20.Q7 PA Super. 31, 916 l\1~d··l206 (200~) (whe~~ t~e PCRA:pet~tio~ is untimely, the.failure.of the1c,ourt.to provide the ~qtice .~eq,uired by·Rule 907, Pa. a..:Crim.'. Prpc., is~npt rev~;rsible error;·the timeli­ness requirement$:ofthe. PCRA·are mandatory._an_drjurisdi~tional

642

PENNSYLVANIA ,· § 41:40

in nature. and,.therefore,·no court may,properly.disregard or alter them in orderto reach the·merits ·of.the·.claims·raised in a PCRA petition~that is. filed in an .untimely maniierk ....

I ; ' ; I • ' • • I t i .~ .__, ! t'. • •· • ( j' ' '. . ~. •

§ 41:39 Pennsylvania Post Conviction ReliefAct·tµlder 42 : .· P~:Co~s •. Sta~~ §§1Q541 to:95~P~~sylvania

Rule of CriminalProcedure:90l~Text.: . ; . L' : t ~ . •' ' ; . I ~ ' (

Rule 901. Initiation of Post-Coi;tvicti~~ <;oll~terQ). Proceedings .. , .. "" ,; .. ..· . ·... . ...

' • • • ~ } I ~ • , • ' l_ · • _ _ · , I • ·

(A) ~ p_et~tic~n f~r :pps.t-~o~yiictia~ .. ~o}l~ter,~l r~lief. shall be . filed w1thm o.ne y~ar Qf t~e date t~e .J.uggment beqomes final, except as otherwise provided 'hlH~tattlte. ' ' · : · · 1

•. • • • •

(B) A ·proceedi~g for post-convictfoil collilteral relief shall be initiated· ~Y filing a petition and tlireEr copies' Wi~h the clerk of

. 'the coUrt jn which the ··defendant was' convicted and sentenced. The petition shall be verified by the defendant. ·

: ': • \ I ' • , • I. •' ~ ' ' • •: ; ~ f l ' t • ·-: ' • # ' • ; •

I < • • ·:' I_: 0 , • l • ' o • ~ •• ',.

§ 41:40 Pennsylv~itJ:~o,t·('onvjctiq:q.Jl,~lief~ct ~der 42, : j. . , , . :e,. po;tis. ~t~~~ . ~§ .~~~~; to,.~q~P;enn~~lvania

.. . . , lt~~;«>;f. C~ft1.; ~i;p~~d~~ ~~~~~ ~+· . : ; r ~qle )9~~. I bonten~ '~f ~~t~tiO~ .fri~: P~st.~C~~yicti,.~n Col· , •~ter~lReli~f;· .~~qu~~t .for ·~~s,.C.ov~ry, ·; . , . _ · . .. ;

(A) A petition for post-conviction collateral relief: shall bear :the.:caP.tiP~, ,ij_ulJlb~r, and., court ~~:rm .qf.~~~ case or; cases in w~ch. re~ief. i&. r~que~tec;l :·and. shai1 ~Antau;1., -.sµ~s~E\nti~lly the

.. following inf<;>rmation: 'Th~ petitjon _may~ b1:1t need :npt, include ~ cdncise. argriment·lor. citatibn' and discussio'n of authorities .. • , :1 . . . '- 1: •:' , ·' '. • •_j' i · .. ,.~ '' ~ · ·"~:I :" ,; ·_ ... ·,t' • .. ;t" •", '-'.~·:

·. (1) t~~ n~e of t~~A~(~n.~a~~; ...... ; · .:1,i. ·;, ,

· .. ' · (2) the ,place: where :the defendant is. confined,. or if not ... _,confined, the defendant's current address; : i ~ ,. • ·, ··1

(3), the 'offenses 1for which the defendant was··convicted and sentenced; .. ;. . : .... ._ ·, ! .. ,.

. ; · (4) the date_ on which .the d.efendant'was sentenced; · '. {()) whether the defendant was ·convicted. bf a jury, by a

· : judge without jl1ry, · ofr ·a ·plea of guilty, or on·· a pJ~a :of nolo ·contendere; · ;. · . · :" -=-. ': . , ..... : , · , · ;1; ,, ..

·• (6) the' sentence 'itnposed· ·anc¥ wheth~ri the" defendant is . now serving Of waiting to. serve· tliat sentence; I • • • .. 'c

j • • (7) the I Iiame of tli¢ judge· whQ 'P.resid~if flt ttiaI o.r .Pl~a ~d ini osed s~nteritie'· ' •.• ·., "' ,., J•: ·. "'J ' • :_·. :! ' . ".:. . . - p. ' . . ' • · 1' . ; . : . ' · ; • • , ·• 1 • -.: .' ' ' • . " ' · • ' . . . ') : ' I· · .,

(8) the court, caption,. ~rm, .an.d mpnb.er of ~ny ·propee~ng

643

§ 41:40 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(including appeals, prior·post•conviction collateral proceed­ings, and federal court proceedings) instituted by -the defendant to obtain relief'.from conviction or sentence, specifying whether a proceeding is pending or has been completed; · .. · · . . ·• '· .. ·

(9) the name ofeach'lawyer.who repres~nted·the·:defendant at any time after. arrest, and .the~stage of the ;case at which each represented the defendant;

(10) the relief requested; (11) the grounds for the relief request.ed; (12) the facts supporting ea'ch s·uch ground that:.

' . • I • I,, . '

(a) appear 1n tq~ re.,cord, and t,lie place in the ~ecord . wh~re they appe,ar; ~nd . (b) QO .. not ~ppear'tn th~ r~co~d, and .. ~n .. identifi~S;tion of any affidavits, ·d9cuments, a~d other e~<;l~nce showing such facts; ~ . . . j .

(13) whether any of the grounds for the relief requested were raised before, and if so, at what stage of the case; · · (14) a verification by ·the. defendant that:··. · · · (a)~the facts s~t forthin:the p~tition are· true ~d correct to the nest of the defendant's personal kriowle'dge or infor­mation and. belief and that a~y .false s~ateµie~ts therein are made subject to '.the· penalties of the Crimes~:Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating tounsworn falsificatioh·t<niuthori-·ties;;and :

,,. (b) 'the attorney filing the petitiOn is authorized· by 'the defendant to: file the petition on, tlie defendant's' behalf;

'(15) if'applicable, any req~est f~r· an eVident~a,ry hearing. The request for an evidentfary he'iUingshall include~ signed certification as to each intended Witness·, ~tating the witness's name, address, and .. date· of birth, and the substance of the witness's testimony. Any documents material to the witness's testimony sJlall als9 be· inclµd~d in the -petition; and

(16) if applicable, any request for discovery. (B) Each ground relied upon in support of the relief requested

shall be stateci in-th.~ .. petition. Failure to state: such a ground . in the petitions.hall preclude the defendant from raising. that ground in any proceeding for post-conviction collE\teral relief.

( Q) . The defenda17-t shall state in the petition the. name and address of the a.ttorney who will repr~~ent. the d~fendant in the

1 pos~-;-co~victipn, collat~ral proceeding. Jf the defe~dant .is unable to afford or· otherwise· ·procilre coun:sel, ~d waQ.ts couri;sel ap­pointed, the defendant shall so state in the petition and· shall request the appointment 'Of counsel.· · · ·

644

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:41

. · (D), The defendant shall attach to the petition any affidavits, records, documents, or other .evidence which show the facts stated in support of the. 'grounds for relief, or. the petition shall state why they .are not attached. . · . ·

(E) Requests· for Discovery ·-. (1) Except as provided i~ paragraph (E)(2); no discovery shall be permitted -at any sta:ge of ·the preceedings, except upon leave of court after· :a showing of 1 exceptional

; circumstances. . . · · · . ·::, . · ·. · . · . · " · (2) On the !first eounseled petition in a death, penalty cas~,

no discovery shall be perinitted :at =any stage of the proceed­. ings, except upon leave of court after a showing of good cause.

• : ~ ' l \ ' . I '

§ 41:41 Pennsylvania ';t>ost Con'.Viction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons.: Stat.·§§ 9541 to,9546-Pennsylvania .:_. Rule· of Criminal Procedure··90~Case law

. F'or cas~ law on Rule 902,'. see. e~g~, Com. v. kf aso~~ 130. A.Sd 601 (Pa. 2015) (capital mrirder. defeltdant. w'aived his layered in,ef­foctive assistance .. of connsel _claim under _PCRA, which was founded on. theocy ·that trial' .<founs~l spould ·have. pre~ented a diminished capacity, "heat. of passfon" ·defense at ·trial;· even though ·PCRA court addressed claini on merits .and Commo~­wealth. did' not contradict defendanes clainl. that issue had been properly p~ead~ci and was awaiting, ~etermination, defend.ant failed properly to. seek court's perntjSsio_il to ainend his PCM pe­tition to i.p:clude,, for the first ~inle, a l~yered ~nefl'ectjvenes~ claim, and. court entertairiedi newly-raised theory in reli~ce on. parties' taking U.P argllm.ent 9f cl~ as if.it had bee~ '_pr~perly pleaded); Com. ·v. Williani.s, 1Q5 A.3d. 1234 (Pa. 2014), petitfon Jor certiorari filed (U.S. June 12,,20.1.5) (~he rules_.govetjrlJ1.g discovecy.·in PCRA matters explicitly state. that. no ·aiscoyery is permitted for first counsel~d.petitions e~cep("upon _le.~ve ofcourt:after a showing of good. cause," Pa.R.Crim.P .. ,902(E)(2); whne· .in serial cases, qisc9very is no~ permitted except upon leave of court after a :sho~~ ing ,9f.excep~ional circumstances); .C.om. v. Rei~, ·9~ A.3d 427 (P~; 2014) (showing of good.' cause, as necessary for discovery in a postconviction proceeding in death penalty case, requires more than just a generic deiµanq for potentially. exculpatory: evidenc~ that might be discovered· if a' qefendant is. permitted to review the .requested materials); Com,. v. Elliott, 622 Pa. 236, 80 A.3d 415. (2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 50,. 190 L. Ed. ·2d 54 (2014) (defendant could not 'establish good cause necessary to compel additional discovery in death ,penalty collateral ·proceedings; defendant could not identify any document that was withheld

. from him that would have been exculpatory, and, his claims to·

645

§ 41:41 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

the contrary, constitute mere speculation; showing of. good!._ cause reqtiires more1 than just··a · geperic-demand for· potentially exculpa­tory evidence);·Com. v .. Williams,.624.·:Pa~ 405, 86A.3d ·771:(2014) (there is no general right, under· Brady or under Rule 902(E)(2) as a capital PCRA matter, to insp~ct the prosecutor's file; Brady imposes an affirmatiye .i;md. contiµ.uing duty: upon the government to disclose. exc\llpatory;int:onnatfon, \>ut it establjshes. np _specific right in the .defendant to review. the Commonwealth's file. ·to see, for example, if he agrees with the Commonwealth's ass~ssment and. rep~e.sen~~jon; no :goop c~_use7.~xisted for ~CM .issuance of discov~ry order c~pital :murder d~(e:µ4ant sought .requirjJ;l.g Com­monwealth to turn. over to .def.~nd.ant's ~tandby. coun~~l all notes prepared by trial prosecutor concerning interviews; witness prep­aration sessions, and witness examination outlines for four of defe;ndant's co-~onepir!it9rs~ who. we,r~i alsQ .witnes~~s .at trial, ·as . necess~ .uJ;lder rule governi~g PCRA: discovery Jn capital cases; PCRA court did.. not· discusa. 'the. gopd.-caµae,,sta'Q.di;u~d governing e:gcept~Qn to rul~'s gen.era! proscription against PC;RA discovery, rid~ 'dig it addi-ess' the' \yp;rkj:S~od~ct aocttjn~ and'. explain• why defendant's proffe.r . requ_ired ... tha't: the; priv~ege .·be def~ated, and PCRA court also ·never addressed tria1 'prosecutors· repeated as­s~ance~ that she ~d'.not .tajt.e 'not~$ '.of pr~~trifil ~n.tefviews \tith witnesses· and that· the;re w~s lio~Nng e~culp~~ry in~ the: files); Com. v. Edmistbn, 619 Pa. 549, 65 A~Sd'339 (2013), cert. denied, i34· S~ Ct. 639,: 187 t. ·Ed. ~d 42a· {2013) (discovety in 'Post' Cbnvic­tion· R.e~ef Act1 proceediJigS.-'carii;iot be used as an excu.sa'for_ eng~g: ing in a: fishing' ~xpeaitiQ~; ~apita~ ¢~der d~feQ.d~nt'was .. ·not entitle¢! t~ discioyery. 'on :his 1 ,p~tipfo~ for. pos'tco~vfotiori 'r'elief~ w;here the docwnents 'he.requested were relevant tO 'the merits of his 'lin~imely·clauns~'and he offe~e.~ np' argv'.rrient exce.pt to 'say that .~i~: di~c()v~cy:requ~st's w~re.supporte4»,by.tpe rec?rd); Com~ v. Hanible; 612'.Pa. :;183, 30 A.3d 426 (~OlJ'.),. cert .. demed, 133 S. Ct. 835;. fa4· L. Ed. 2d '662 (20l.3Y (~ppell8Ji~s coajectute th:at an opportunity to' pertise the· .~ntir~ · poli~e·1hoµil~de .file ·might'. yield helpfiil ·evidence 'does . not constitute godd cause; PCB-* co"ur,t p~oper,ly reject$. request. for \yliole.sale~ djscovery: of whatever'' J:n­formati~n. 'the petitibrter "believed" ~o eXi~t-·andJor fil0~ ·s~·th~t-he could discern wliether his- :a.sse,tions were truek : ' ·· ·

~ . . ·:. • j .. ' • ' -~ •, !_. ; .• : j : ' - . • -., ~ ; • - . • . . ~ • ~ .

§.41:42 Pennsylvama.Po8t._Convicti0n Relief Act under·a ·,. ·. : ,-Pa/C~~~~:~tat~ 1 §§ 934i'to,95~Peririsyly81li~ · ::,. · , · .- -. · .. R~e of Criminal' Procedlµ-e 90~Postsente~c~g

, · -··phase ·of original .crimlnal caae ~ ·. · · · · · · ·.· ~ · o , • L • ()' I • • ~ •

1 • ~ ',-, ( .' • , .- : ~ :. ' I

1 • ·, o

. A Pennsylvania PCRA proceecµng is; a postsenten,cing·! phase. of the original· criminal case,, _not ,an· independent. civil action. Rule 902(A), _:Pa. R.; Cri~. Pro~. (a peti.tion for postconvictiQn relief

646

I

1. PENNSYLVANIA · § 41:43

shall bear. the . captioni" number, and court .term· of the, case ·in which relief is requested); Rule 903(A), Pa.' R. ·Cnm. Proc.:- (upon receipt· of.t~e petition for· postconvicti<)n. relief, the· ~lerk shall make .a- docket entry, .at the same, term· and . number. ·as· the underlying· conviction.and sentence, and shall place the petition in the criminal case··fi.le).: · .. ~- < · · · y : · , ··. · -:. : , , . : . ·

The juage who presided over the petitioner's trial shall, if avail­ab,le,. proceed with and di~pose of the petition for postconvjction relief. :Rtile'903(C)~ ~a.~.i~:. C#nl~-·~oc ... · . ";: · _1

, _: -· • :· · · • ' ' •. • , ' • • ·~ , ~ '} - • • I' - : ·. • )

'.. ,FQr ,cas.~. la}V p~'. Penl1Sy~v;aQ1~) Ritle:of.9.tj.i¢nw. Pro.c~dure 903, see, e.g., Com:· v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (Coµi­monwealth~s noti¢e of appeal ~ed 30 :days ·after ttial court's grant of· defendant's·· m.otiOn· for a .. µew; trial :in·"postconviction relief proceedings followrrig capital ·mu~der conviction and s~ntence was timely, 'where,; although the'- ,day after the nc;>tice I b'f appeal was '.·sul>¢itted, clerk informed' Commonwealth· that -notice ;W'as defective and Commonwealth· filed an: 'amended notice,- and clerks of·court lacked the·:authority to~'reject,' ·as defective, a' timely no­~ice_ ;of appeal~. 'such that 'the; t:lct of tim~ly filing· the notice of ap­peal, fur and-of itself, ·pelfected'the-Coinm(!nwealth's appe.al). <.

·, : ~ , • .. • -. • ' " ' , • • ·, ' • • •• , ;, •• ; • ~ ' - # , • , •• •• • : I · :1 : : t • , : ~ .

§·4i:4s: Pennsylvama:Pc>st Conviction_ Relief Act und.ei; 42 · · · ·: . ,: ·."'" .'Pa. 'Co*s.· Stat •. §§ 9541 to 95~Pennsyl~ariia ·

.. : i:' .r:. ·Rwe'of··C~immaili·procedrire· QO~Postsentencing~ •: · : ·, ····:phase ·~fj-oHginru ·c.riminm·.cas~Text ~ ·' • ; , ! 1 t 1 , • ;- ~ • :~ .°.;, ~ ..... : : :- ·t I ' : ; _. r "; • '•i ,. • ' : ..; .. • . I , • o • •

: : ·'R~e 19os-.:.:nocketing and· .AS~ignm~µt :_ .. -· -· · · · ·, , · · . ·~ -. '(~'.)._ Viloil x:~cejpt of a,.'pet~tiort for po~t-cpn~ictjo.n .collateral . 'relief, the Jclerk or.courts proniptl{shall tim~ s~rurip the peti­

tion with the' cf~te 1 of receipt an.a make a' docket entry/at the sanie '·te.rm' and-nuinbef):l:S- t~e'.uhderlying cori~ictipn_ and

. sentence, reflecting the date' of r~ceipt: land. 'pro~ptly shall place ·the petition iQ:: the ·criminal case file::'The clerk shall tr~nsmit

J ·the petition· and the ~riiniµal.'case file ·to the·trlaljudge; if avail~ . able, ;or to the admi-ilistrative judge;: if the trial judge is· not

· · available.· If the"defendant's -confiriementiis by Virtue of multiple indictments· or ·informations and -sentences; the case shall .be

:, docketed to" the same· .ter.m·a-D.d· nuinber as the indictment or in• 'formation. upon ,which: the :..first unexpired terin was. imposed, · but the court _may·take judicial notice of all proceedings related

·.to the. multiple:indictments .. or informations.: . 1-

: · ·· , .. (B) When the .petition.:is filed and: the docket entry is. made, the .clerk shall tranamit a·copy. of the petition toithe:attorney

. -for-the Commonwealth ... :" · c .. ·) •

: ; . · ( C) . The · trial judge, if· available, shall proceed· 'with and :.dispose of the· petition in accordance· with these rules~ ... unless

647

§ 41:43 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND ·RELIEF

·the judge determines, .in the interests of justice, that he or. she should be disqualified. . ·. .- . · · ,

(D) When the trial judge· is unavailable or Qisqualifie(J., .the administrative judge promptly shall assign and transmit ·the petition and the record to another judge, who shall proceed with and dispose of the petition in accordance. with. these .rules.

· § 41:44 Pennsylvania Post ConViction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat •. §§ 9541 to 9546-Pennsylvania Rule of C~inal ·Proceaure 904-Right to counsel

There is a right to counsel in :Pennsylvania PCRA proceedings. Rule 904(A) to (E), Pa. R. Crim. Proc. (except in death sentepce cases, when an unrepresented petitioner sati.sfi.es the judge that the petitioner is unable to afford or Qt:Jie~ise procure counsel, the judge shall appoint counsel to represent t~e petitione~ on the petitioner's first petition for .postconviction coll~teral. ~elief; on a second .or .subsequent petition, when ap. l,tnrepresented petitioner satisfies the J1:1dge that ,tP,e peti.tioner is unable to afford or othe~se procure coun,sel,. and an evidentiary ~earing is required as provided in Rule 908, Pa. R. Crim. Proc., the judge shall ap­point co~nsel to .represent the. defendant;. furthermoret the judge shall appoint co:unsel to repr~~ent a P.etit.jori~r wheJ.lever the interests of justice req~e it;. an appqi~t~eµt of ~ouns.el shall be effective throughout th~ postconviction; col~ateral proceedings, including any appeal from disposition of the petition for postcon­viction collateral relief; R~le 900(B)(4)(a) to. (c),:P~. ,R. Crim. Proc. (p~suant to Rule 904, Pa .. R. C~. Proc., t~~ trial judge will ap­point new ~ounsel to represent the petitioner for the purpose of postconviction collateral revi~w, unless:. (1) , the. p~titioner has elected to proceed pro .se or waive postconvictiOn ·collateral pr()ceedings, and the judge .finds, after a cplloquy.~on the. record, that the defendant iS competent and, the pe~~~ion,e;s e~ection is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (2) tp.e d~fen4ant requests continued' representation .by original trjal counsel or direct ap­peal counsel, and the judge finds, after a colloquy· on the. r.ecord, that the petitioner's election constitu,tes a knowing,. .intelligent, and voluntary waiver· of a claim that. counsel was. ineffective; or (3) thejudge finds~· after· a cono·quy on.the ·record, that the defendant has engaged counsel who has entered, or will promptly enter, an appearance fot·the.collaterhl review proceedings); Rule 904(G)(l), (2), Pa. R. Crim. Proc. (at ·the conclusion· of direct review in a death sentence case, which includes discretionary review in the U.S. Supreme Court, or at the:expiration of time 'for seeking the review, upon remand of the record, the trial judge shall appoint new:counsel for the purpose of postconviction collat-

648

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:46

eral review, unless: (1) .the defendant has elected to proceed· pro se or waive postconviction ·.collateral pr:oceedings, and the judge finds, after a colloquy. on the record, that the defendant is competent and the defendant's election i~ knowing, iµtelligent, and voll1ntary; (2) the defendant requests continued representa­tion by original trial cotirisel or 'direct appeal counsel, and the judge finds, ·after· a colloquy on the record,' that the petitioner's ~lectio.n constitutes a knowing, intelligent, ~nd voluntary waiver of a ·claim that counsel ·was· ineffective; ·or (3) the judge finds,'. af­ter a colloquy on the record, that the defendant has engaged counsel who, has entered, or will promptly enter, an appearance for the collateral review proceedings;· the appointment of counsel shall .be effective throughout the postconviction collateral proceed­ings, including any appeal from disposition of the petition for postconviction collateral relief).

§ 41:45 Pennsylvania; Post Conviction Relief A~t under 42 .Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 95~Pennsylvania Rule· of Crimfual' Proced'iire 904-Right to ··

. effective assistance of postconviction counsel • : • . ~ ' : ,' .' -: • J . ' : : .i

Furthermore, the Pennsylvania courts have held that the right to postconviction counsel includes the right~ the effective assis-tance pf postconviction counsel. . . ' . ., ...

§ 41_:4~

!' . . ' , _.

!' . ·, . ·· ..

Pennsylvania Post 9onvictiQn Relief Act µnder 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.'§§ 9541t'o954&-:-Pennsylv~ia Rule of Criminal Procedure 904-Right to effective assistance of postconviction counsel-Text. •· ,. . . ··' . ..

Rule 904. -Entry··Of Appearance-··and Appointment of Counsel; In ·Forma :Pauperis , . · · · · · . · . · : · . · ·

·(A), Counsel for ·defendant: shall file ··a·writteri entry of ap­pearance with the. clerk :of courts 'promptly after being retained or appointed, and' ·setwe·: a :copy on-:· the. attorney· for the Commonwealth. If a firm name is entered, the· name·of an indi- -vic;lua~ lawyer shall be d~sign.ated, as being r~sponsible for the conduct of the caee. ' : : . .:. ' " .' . . . . .:·~· "· . . ' .. '

~ (B) Ex~ept as provided i~ .paragraph ,(Q), :W~~~. aµ. ~epre-sented defendant satisfies the judge that the· defendanti is un­able to afford or otherwi$e procure counsel,, the judge' shall ap­point counsel to represent :the 'deferi.'dant on the ·.1defe.Jidant's first· petition· .fur post-convictfon collateral relief. : . ' . . . . . '

· (C) On a sec~nd or sl:ibsequent petition, ·when' ··azi unrepre­sented deferidarit satisfies· the· judge· that the ·defendant :ls un-

649

STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

· ~ .able-to: afford or :otherwise procure counsel, and ail evidentiary .. hearing is:required as proVided:in Rule 908, the judge· shall ap-

point· counsel to represent the defendant. '. . .. ' • • i I j . - ' • • ~ • ' ' I ' • • ' • . ' • •

· , -(D) · TD.e judge shall apj;>oint counsel to represent a defendant whenever the 'interests of j~stice r~qUire 'it. . ' ' ,·.. . . . ..

1

• _ • (E): ~ ~ppo~tm~ht. of c<?~nse! s1=i~l b~ · efiec~iye ·th,rQµghout . th,e,.pq~t;-~nvictiQ:µ .colla~rEl;l p~o.ceedings, inclq~ng any ~ppeal ;frti~/µspqs~ti,on of the pe~itfon:.for:po~t.-qonyicti~i;t .~ollater~l

,r~·:·e.. ,; . ..:"' '".: ... , ,--'.;:(F) When· a defendant satisfies the judge that the defendant ! . -is. unable· to pay the ·costs·. of the post-conviction ·collateral

·proceedings, the judge shall order that.the.defendant be petmit­:"ted to. pr.aceed in forma paU:peris.-

(G) Appointment of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases.· · i .. ~(~).At th~ conclusion of dire.~~ review in a death penalty cas~, .. whjchJncludes discr.etion.ary review in the. Supreme Coiirt_of~e \Unit~d:States, or at the expiration of time for s~ekii ·the\~eview, up~n ren.iand of tJl,e record~ ~h~ trial judge shall appoint new courisel for the purpose of post-conviction

. collateral review, unless:· · : · ·1 • · •

(a) the aefendant has elected! tO pr~ceed prQ s_e' or waive post-conviction collateral proceedings, and the judge finds, _ (lfte~. ~- ~.o~lgquy. on __ ;the .rec9rd, that tl~e. defeng_an~ is 'competent ana t~e defendant's el~cti_oh js knowing, 'intel-ligeµt~·and vol~tacy; .' . ,· . ' . . .· :·

• • L 't~ • J " • j •

. ~ .(b):. the defendant reque,$ts c.on@u~d representation by original trial counsel or direct appeal counsel, an~ the judge finds, after a colloquy on the record, that the . petitioner's. election ·eont.ltitutes. .. a kno:w.jng,~ intelligent,· and voluntary waiver of a claim,..t_hat co:unse}.was. ineffective;. or

·;!-, ': ,(c),.thejudgei._finds;ra~ert~J.colloquy on the.record, that l ,. , ~:th~: .defendant- has engag~d counsel who has entered, or

• J • • ·~.·will· promptly; enter~ an ~ppearan.ce . .for -the collateral review , '·: : : proceedings~.:: ,i:~~. . , .-. ·, ·· , . : ·

,~: • '.u•c2)~ The"·appofo.t~ent' of counsel 'shall ,Q~ ·eftectNe through­out the pos~-conviction collateral. proceedings, inCl~dil)g· any

.. , ' " apf)eal frorii'di$p6sitio'ri of'the petit~oil'for. p·ost--convictidn col-" lateral'·relief. ·"j • -~' · - _._. '_ ·,,_; .: ... ._:. ,,_ .:.':., .'.. · : , • ·

:.'·; ·, .. ;~:,CS) ·:~~n,~.tJ1~ 1·d~·(e.114~n~r·-~~hs~~s· th~ ju_dg~. that, the defendant i~. u~al?l~ t,0 paytctP.e: ~o~ts.o(~h~}pQst .. conviction

,., c9lJat~r~l. pr.o~~ed,.]~gs, t.he jl\ .. ~ge s.l;i~l~ orde~\ tliat ·.the _ . defe1;1~apt be .·m~fim~ted .tci P~9.ceed i~:P,; fo~a p_~!-lper;is. . .

650

PENNSYLVANIA §;41:47

§ 41:4'7 ~ ;l>ennsylvairla1Post. Conviction Relief Act ,under. 42 J" -·:Pa~, cons. Stat. §§.9541'to·954~Pennsylvania ·.

·: ... Rule Qf Criminal Procedure, 904--;J.tight!to ... · ...: , ... counsel--.Case law . j

· :fot .. c.ase law·"~n tlie 'right ;to· ~~otinsel in P~nnsylvania PCRA proceedings; s~~' , e·i., In. re . Qqrhmoiiwealth·;s Moti'on to. Appoint Cpu7J-s~l Agairist or. Dir.ect.ea ;.~Q pefetJ,der As~.'n of Philq,delphia', 790. F.3d. 457,_'{3dJJir. ~Q.15), -~~- ~m~nded, (Ju~e .16,::~01~) and cen: P,e~ed,)~~. ~. Ct~· 9.8Q. (2.9,~6) an.cLc.~rt~ denieq, -1aa. s: c,t. 994, 194 -~· Et;I. ~ct&. (2916), (~h.f~ :ca.se 'involve~.~ concerted effort oy tl?-e. qqmmo~w~~th '.<>f'~~pnsyJv~~ an~ various Perin~yJvama c~~ties to bEU" ~t~orn~y(fi;~~'..the}~~~i~a~}~abeas "()nit oft}?.~· ~e.~eral C~n;n.muruty 1;5efen~e;i:. Orga~1~at1on 'for th~. E~~te·i:n :District of P~nnsylvama .. t'Fefde_ral Cp~mun.ity D~fender'') ·fro~ representing clien,ts ·iri state ·~ostCon~ction proceedings;_'iil .sev~n ~~rent. Pe~sylvahia Post~{fott{1~oil'. 'Review· 'Act case$· iri v.an-01is. J:>enb.sylvania counties, hearillgs were iriiiiated tO disqu'allfy ·the· Federal Commimity:De'(epder as'·c6unsel{ in.· each case, the cited reason for :disquB'.lificatroh -.was'. bas·ed· ·on .the brgamzation's all~ged· 'misuse :!Jf fed~al ·grant 'fttnds to :app~ar •iq. $tate ptoceed~ ings; t!ie Eederal CominliiiitY, ~efendet ten;c9ved ·an of'these ~o~ tions··under the ·federal .dfficer··remova1··sfatut~,':28 u..s.c.A. § 1442(a)(1)~· (d)(lli_ 1ri ·respo11:se~~ t:tie coillmonweEilth ~fi1ea motfo~s lindet·28 U.8'.C~-?\~ ·§ _'1447(c)_to.r~turn:·eacli 1case to the'~tate.co~, claiming that' tht{ federal ·offic~r re~dta:l statµt~· 'did.' not. conf~r fedetal.subject~~attef jtirisdiction;\ve ~old tliatt(l) thefea~rai·~~~ ficer· removal sta tu.te. provi'd'es. r4einova1 fttrlsdictiori ~ fo'r 1f ed~ral ~ourts · to·. deCide· .:the· .n;totions:, tp. ;m~qµ1alify, pied'-·in.

1

th~· Com::. mo·nwealth's PC:Ri\ probeeCiings·~ ·~nd (2)' those disqhalificati8n proce~di~gs are ,preempt~d'.by· federal l~w~t Com. v:,'~l~'r(ec~t~. 554 Pa-. Sl, 720 A.2d ·693~ (1998) (the denial ·or PCRA"reb:ef: c~nnot stand:hiiless the petitioner. was 'afforded'.the~·assista~ce· of counsel; while the appointment of E6uns'el in· PCRA'. 1proceedingslhas· been made mandatory by our rules of c;riminal procedure, Pa.R.Crim..P. 1503't(» 1504; 'appointed.''coun~el. possesse,:J· the' 'prer.ogative~ of declinirig~to litigate· a·. ipentless petition;· ifeyetj;heles~, counsel's decision in this redafd fS"gU~jectfto exacting··judiCial review; remand'. of cage· ·ro:r· a'ppointm.ent .:·or postconvi~tion. appellate counsel to prepare new appeal is accepted remelff where counsel's deficient performance denies postconviction :petitioner .. ~entirely" his right :.to· appeal; where postconvicti0n · counsel . is faul~ed for forgoing• some issues· ·which: .petitioner. wished to .raise,. ·Supr.eme Court will grant relief. only if petitioner shows tthat. counsel's conduct, by action or omission,, was of ,:questionab~e· legal sol.ind .. ness, that conduc.t complained of .had no'·reasonable basis designed to .. effectuate p:etitio'ner's. interest,. and th:at counsel's

651

§ 41:47 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND· RELIEF

conduct had adverse effect on· outcome .of proceedings; if. it is clear .that· petitioner has not demonstrated that counsel's act or omission adversely affected. outcome' of proceedings, claim may be dismi_ssed on that basis alone); Com. v .. ·: Jette; .611 Pa. 166, 23 A.3d 1032 (2011) (indigent criminal defimdant does not enjoy.the unbridled right to be rep;resented by counsel of his own cho.osing; there is no right to hybrid representation e,ither at trial or on ap~ peal); Com. v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875. (2009)'(Superior Court erred· when it sua sponte -reviewed the adequacy of Post Conviction Relief Act counsel's no".'merit ,letter under the Turner/ Finley requirements, where d~fepda*t' did ifo(raise the issue in the ·pcRA court 'during th~' 20-da,y response period· provided .by statu~e a~e:r the court· i~dicated 'ah intent to· dismiss the peti­tion); Com~ v. Broo"fis, 2005 P~ Super 185, 875· '.A.2d 1141 (2005) (it is well established that .ordinarily tlie right to ·counsel does n~t attach with s~cond. or. subsequent. petitiQnS filed pursuant to the PCRA); Com. v. White, 2005. PA Super 125, 871 A.2d 1291 (2005) (an indigent petitioner is e1:ltitled .to. :representa~ion by counsel for a first petition filed under the PCRA, !whicp right. exists through­out the po~tconviction proceedipgs, ''including .any appeal from ~sp~si~on of the petition for po~tconviction relief); Corri. ·v. Evans, 2005-PA Super~' 866 A.2d. 442 (2005) (examining.the right to .counsel u1 .P.GllA .'proc;:~e(li,~gs; .a long· line. of Pe~ylvani~ prece­Q.eµt requiring uD.equjvocally ~hat . prisoners seeking postconvic­tion reli.ef J:>y \Yhat~v~r ~~e be affoi;ded,t~~·~ssistanc~ ·of c~uns~l; ~ese holdings follow from the Aiand~~cy la,ngua,ge . co1:1tameq. m Rule. 904~ Pa. R. ,Crim. Proc.; the denial of PCRA. relief cannot ~f~,nd · urile.~s .. .tlie petitioner ;~as·. afforded the ~ssis.ta11c~ of counsel); CQm~ v. White, .2005 PA S.uper 125, 871 A..2d 1291 (2005) (an' indige~t petitioner is entitled·to.repJ"ese~tation by counsel for a first petition filed rm.d.~r the· PCRA, which right 'e;xists through• out the postconvictiOn. proceedings, including any appeal from disposi:ti,on..o( the petition for postco,n~ction ~elief).

§ 41;48 P~nnsylvania Post Convi~tion Rellef Act under.42 Pa. Cons. Stat~ §§ 9541 to .9546-Pennsylv&nia Rule of Crimfual.Procedure 9()~Right to · · effective. assistance of postconViction counsel~'

.; .. ·.·.case law · For case .law on the right to the effective· assistance· of

Pennsylvania PCRA counsel, see, e.g., Com. v. Jones, 572 Pa'. 343, 815 A2d 598 (2002).(death sentence case; there is no federal constitutional right to :counsel :upon :state collateral. review; rather, the right derives _from Rule .904, Pa. R. Crim. Proc., which we have held confers an enforceable right to the effective assis­tance of PCRA counsel);,Com.-v. Haag, 570 Pa. 289, 809 A.2d 271

652

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:61

(2002) (death sentence;. case~. while ·a PCRA petitioner does. not have a Sixth ~endment right to assistance of counsel during ~qllateral review, .this commonwealth,. by way of procedural· rule, provides for the appointment of counsel during a prisoner's first petition for postconviction: relief; pursuant to our procedural rules,, not. only .does a. PCRA petitioner hav:e the right to cpunsel, but also he or she has the .rig:\lt to effective assistance of counsel).

§. fil:49, . Pe~sylvani~ P.9st: CoQ~~tion Relief Act under 42. Pa.- Cons. S~t •. ~t 95~1.to;~~46-Pe~sylvania · .. Rule of Criminal Proce4ur~ 9~lh-Filing-Leav~ to amend or ~th~•'W: pe~~tio~. . , . . .

The-court may grant leave'to amend or withdraw the petition for postconviction relief at any time, and amendment shall be freely allowed to achieve ·substanti~lijustice. Rule 905(A), Pa .. R. Crim. Proc. . i : ·

~ + • '

§ 41:50 . Pennsylvania Post. Convictiop. Relief Act under. 42 Pa. Cons. Sta~. §§ ·9541 to 9546-Pennsylvania Rule Qf. Criminal Procedure 905-~xt. of rule

Rule 905. Amendment and Withdrawal of Petition. for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief ·

(A) :The judge may grant leave to amend or withdraw a peti~ tion for post-co11:viction.collateral reliefat any time. Amend­ment shall be freely~llowe,d to achieve sub~tantial.ju~tice.

(B) When a petition for post-conviction collateral relief is defective as originally file~, the.judge shall order Altlendment of the· petition, indicate the nature of the defects, and specify the time within which~ amended petition shall be filed. If the order directing amenchn.ent is not complied with, the petition may be dismissed without a hearillg.' ' · ·· 1

·

"(C) Up'on the entry of an. order directing an ruµe~cfuient, the ·clerk of courts· shall serve_a copy of the order on. the d~fendant, the defendant's attor.ney, arid the att'orriey for the Commonwealth.'' · '.·, ·' · ' ; ' ·· .

(D) All am~nded petitions shall be in writing,. shall. comply substantially with 'Rule 902~ and shall 'be filed .and served within the time specified' by the' judge i11: ordering the amendment.

§ 41:51 Pennsylvania Po~t ~onvictio11·ReI!el Act·tuitler.42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9,5ijl to 9546-Pe~sylvan•a· RUie of CriiidnaI·Procedure 905-Case law

.. ' . . ~ . :' ' . ' . ' . .

For case law on Criminal Procedure Rul~ 905; see· e.g., Com. v.

653

§ 41:51 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND ·RELIEF·

Mason, 1ao .A.ad 601 (Pa· .. 2015) :(amendments to pending PCRA petitions are not· "self-authorizing'': such that a petitiOner may slinply··amend. a ·pending petition.with· aisupplemental pleading; rather, amendment is· permitted only~ by direction- or 'leave of, the PCRkcourt;. petitionerrbears 'the'-cmus. of informing the PORA court that h«for she seeks to;_add clainls through 1an 'amended pe.:. tition, ·and, -in re·sponse; the court shaU: freely grant·· leave to amen~ where doing so ac:11ieve~. subs~antial justice).; Cp~ .. v. Simpson,' 62tl Pa.'. ~0, i~S'. ~.-ad: 25arc~.Ol8) (any iD,.~dequa:cies 'in ·. ineffectiVe" assist~c~ clanns oy postoonViction. petition~r did not result· fo waiver on· appeal, wliere·tlie ~postconViction ·court did not endorse or address the Commonwealth's· a~sertfons· ·of waiver and did not engage·in any procedural default analysis);.Com.- v~·Potter,

. 6la: Pa.· 510, a5 A.ad 4· (:2012) (altheugh amendments to :pending Post. Conviction, Relier Act (PORA) ·petitions· are to· be· freely al.;. lowed to achieve substantial justice, a petitioner· may not ·Simply " amend'' a ·pending petition with a supplemental pleading; rather, amendrilent is pemµtted o~y by dir~ction or leave ofthe PCRA ·court; :~here· .capital -defendant filed· a· ~ew Brady claim without leave·'while serial 'PORA petitidn was. ih ·abeyance, trial court .properly treat~d new claim as a separate and distinct PORA petition; rather than as. an anie~dnie~tk . . ... ~·

) -, I••.; J

§ 41:52 1 Pennsylvania Post Convi'ction Relief Act under 42 · ~· Pa.i Co~s. Stat.:·§§ 954Fto~95~Pennsylvania:, ·

• 1 .: RUie of Criminal ·Procedlfre 96~Text of rule·

~ .. . '., ~ . . . ' : ·. : ' i ' . •

· :. : Rule 908. ·,Answer to PetitiOn for: Post-ConvictiOn c()1 .. · lateral Relief· · · , . _, · ~ - · · · .· .. . i : (A): E~cept· as proVid~d iµ par~grEiPh CEJ, an ~wer, to :a ·pe­

. tition for, post-conviction collater~l :f;elief is- not ~~q~e4 unl~ss .orqererl: by,ythe judge. Wh~n the judge h~s no~ ordered an

· · ~ll~We.i •. tp~ 'attor~eyJof the ''9pmmon~ealtli ~·ay.· e~~ct to . atisw~r; b~l. th~. failure; to ~le on~ sh:all not co~stitl.~te. an a~s-

sion: ·of the ·well--pleaded facts alleged· in the petit~on. . . 1

1. (B) lJpon ~he e:Q~ry of an order <Ur~cting an ~nswer, the 'clerk .: "~f c,ourts shaIJ. .s~fye ~ copyl.of the

1 o:r:der .on the attorney· f~r.. the

· Comnionwe'alth, the 'defendant's. attorney, «>i' the defendant if 'unrepre·setlted. ' • 1 '• j • '. I II ·',I' . ' , • • . I

'(C) If the judge orders an answer, the answer· sha11be in writing and shall be :filed and served within the time fixed by ,th~ jud~e in or~e~g the f!lllsvrer. Th~ time fo~ filing the a~s~e~ may ?e J~~~d~4 .~y th~ ju~ge {ot· c.aus~ .sl!~~· , , . : . . ·

(D) T)le JU:d~ may gr.ant l~av.e~to amend .. qr withdraw an answer at any·' tinie. Amendment shall be. treely allowed to achieve substantial justice. amended. answers. shall be in writ-

654

I

PENNSYLVANIA ' . . 1 · '~·~ . § 41164

. ; ing .and· shall .be filed ··and served within t~e· -time specified by ·~the judge in granting· leave to ame~d.. ·~. . '). · . · . . · ; , , : '(E) Answers· in ·Death Penalty Cases

· (1) 'First Counseled Petitions · · · ·' · (a) The Comnfonwealth .shall file' an answer to the· first

· · · · co1.il1seled ·petitiol{for collateral review iri ·a' death penal.ty case~ . . . ' : ; . . ' . ' ' ~ ~ 1 : I

'. ' . i: > I. (Q) Th~• answ~.r shall b~ file4. within· 120 id~ys ,of the fil-•

1 • ing ~d service. o'f the "'Petition. ·;For· good ·c~use ·s~own, the

• • • ·•

1

,c~~ Iil~Y: .order· ext~i:i~i:on~?.: ·~r· ll,P ·tp 9~ d~ys ea!!l1, · of the tune for filing the answer. · .·1• · · · · - ·, · 1

• • • • • · ·

~ . {~). · ~~c~nd *ndJ3ub~equ.~nt }?etitioris :. . · · :. · ·. . · c ..

··. ··: (af An ans\{rer to a' second' or subsequent pe;tition for , post'7convict.ion coll_ateral relief is not required unless

·. · ·, ~- :'ordered. by the 'ju~g~·l. 'Wheri. the· judge "h~s ·n·ot·. br4ered an , · · · answer, 'the· attorney for the 'Commonwealth may elect to ' file an an:swe:r::- '• ... ,,, '; ' ' ' . . : ···. '-.

.. . . (b) The answer"'sh'.an be filed ~tIUn· 120· days of't}.le fil­ing and service of the petition. For good cause shown; the

i 0

· ·c~urt. maY: .order ex~e~ions;: of ·up to 90 days~ ·each,: of the time for_ filing. the. answer. ·: : ·. · . : ~ • : . ·.

· · '.' · · {8) Amendments tC>Aris\iver. Th~ judge may grant the )Com­monwealth leave to amend the answer at any· time~· and

. i. amendment sha:ll be freely:·,allowed. to achieve substantial justice .. amended, answers shall. be' in ;Writing, and. shall be filed. and s.erv.ed: :withjn; ,the time: _specifie4 oy t~e jµ.dge in grantiqg leave .to amend~ , · ' I. - ' •• -~ .. ; l

. , . -". . : , . ~. < . . I t ·. : ~ - .. ' ; .. i, . ,' t: L

§ 41:53 Pennsylvania Post Convict•o~ Relief Act ,µn~~r 42 . j. P~~ 9~ns.; ~ta~. §§ .9541 to 954~~e~~~Ir~ia ·

. , · .. Rd. ~e o!tP~~ ~~c~d~e 99:7-~WD;~4ll9Y ·:i .. . , . . 1,$pos1 19n .. . . . . . . ... . .·. . . . . . . . . . ~ l

• ' ,l •. • , ' ...... ,• - F '

Under Rule 907, Pa; R. Crim .. Proc., aipetition for:PCRA relief may in an appropriate case be~summarily granted· or ,denied, provided the petitioner has not been sentenced to death. Under Rule 909(B), Pa. R. Crim. Proc., if the procedures set forth therein ate followed, a petition· for PCRA-relief in· a·death sentence.case may be· summarily denied.:':·.'. ~ - · _ ·: ;·: : · .: ..

·..: .. : •. . ';· . .r ",.. ~·- . ~ :.· ·: )

§ /'1:54 . Peiµi$ylvani~. ?ost .C~()nvicti,on. Relief Act und~~ 42 · , . Pa. Cops.: ~tat.··§§, 9541 to 95--Penilsylvani~ · ..

. . ... Rule ol Criminal ·Procedure 907.;._Text. . ,· ' . . . . · . ' • :_ •, ' • -. ' • ; • ' ~ '•; f I I ; ' ' t • ' • t ' ' ' ' ~

- l ... ' • " ,• ' ,' _., 0 ' • ' , ' ' : • ) ':. ' ; ~ ; J I .. ,• '•

~t4e1 ~~7. D.i~~9,.iti0~1 "-it1:1out"H,~aring 1

.. ' , ; • . • .

Except as. provide.d iii Rule 909: for .death ,penalty cases: ._. .

655

§ 41:54 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

· (1) The judge shall promptly. ·review the· petition, any answer by the attorney for the Commonwealth, and other matters of record relating .to .the defendant's claim(s). If the judge is satisfied from this review that there are no genuine . issues .. concerning any material! fact and that the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the judge shall. give ~otice t.o the parties of the intention to dismiss· the petition and shal). state· in the notice the ~easons for the dismissal. The defend~t may respond to the proposed dismissal within 20 days of the date of the notice. The judge thereafter shall order the petition di&mi~~ed, grant leave to file an amended petitiOn, or· direct that the proceedings continue. · ·

(2) A petition for. post-convi~tion collateral relief may be . granted. withou~. a hearing wP,en the petition and answer show that there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to relief as a matter of law. c! ..

. lJ•

. · .· · · (3) The judge may dispose of only part of a petition without a hearing by ordering dismissal of or· granting relief on only some of the issues raised, while ordering a hearing on other

·;. = issues. , ( 4) When, the petition is dismissed without a hearing, the judge· promptly shall issue an order to· that effect and shall advise the defendant ·by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the right to appeal from the final order dispos­ing of the petition and of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed. The order shall be filed and served as

· · prQvided in Rule 114. · · !(5) When the petition. is gr~ted without a ~earing, the

judge promptly shall issue an order granting a ·specific form of relief, 'and issue any supplementary orders appropriate to the· ·pr<i>per disposition of the case. ·The ·order shall be filed and served as provided in Rule 114 .

. . § 41:55 . Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42

Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546-Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907-Case law

· .. For case law·o~ Rule 907, see .. e~·g.,.Com. ·v. Pitts~· 603 Pa. l, 981 A.2d 875 (2009) (defendant waived:his appellate arg'1ment that challenged the adequacy. of Post ·Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) counsel's no-merit letter, where. defendant failed to raise the is­sue within the 20-day period proVioed by rule -to file a reply· before the court dismissed the postcohviction petitfon); ·Com. v. duPont,

656

PENNSYLVANIA §41:56

2004 PA Super 364, .: 860 A.2d . 5·25 (2004) (Rule 907, Pa.RCrim.Proc~, governs- dismissal of PCRA ·petitions ·without a hearing; a PCRA court may· decline to hold a hearing on·the·peti­tion if petitioner's claim is patently frivolous Qr lacks s~pport from either the record or other evidence; to prevail on an ineffec­tive counsel claim, the petitioner ·must show: (1) .that ·his 'Claim of counsel's inef(ectiveness' has me#t; (2} that colin,.sel half no. i:~a­sonable. s~rategic .~asis. for his aptiqn .or jn~c~on; ru;id 1(3) th:at· the error of.counsel .prejudiced th~- p'etitione.r-i.e., that .. there is a reasonaQl~ probabi.lity t~at,, p{it; for. 'the error of counsel~ the outcome of the proceeding would~ haye been cliffe~ent) ..

• j •

§ 41:56 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Aet under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 9546-Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 908--Text

. ~ ~ '. . . ~ .' .

Rule ·908. Hearing' . : · ' (A) Except. as pro~ded: In Rule 907, the: judge shall order a

·hearing: The~judge shall schedule the hearing for a time that will afford· the parties -a reasonable- opportunity' for investiga­

. tion an9. preparation, and 'shall- enter such interim. orders . as : may be necessary in'the·interests of justice.· · ··

· (1) 'whenever the· Commonwealth1fil'es. ~ inotfon· to· dismiss

due to the defendant's delay in filing the petition·; or/ ' I''

(2) when the petition for post-conviction relief or the Com­monwealth's answe;r,. if any; raises m:~tenial i~sues of ~act. How.~ver, the judge may deriy a·hearing ·o~ a .specific issue of fact when a full and fair ~vi~entiary hearing upon .that issue was held at trial or at: any· proceeding ·before· or after trial. (B) The jµdge, on p~tition or .r~q.uest, shall postpone :Or

. continµe a hearing to proyide either party a r~~son~ple op­portunity, if one did not exist previously~ for investigation: and preparation regarding any new issue of fact raised· in an amended petition or amended answer.·:.· · 'c· •· '. ·.

-{C) The judge shall permit the defendant to appear iii person at the hearing and shall provide the defendant an opportunity to foive counsel. . ' I '; ' ' • , .. : · ,. ·

(D) Upon the conclusion of the hearing the judge .. shall · determine all material issues raised by the· defendant's petition and the Commonwealth's answer, or by the Comm·onwealth's motion to dismiss, if any.· · · ·

(1) If the judge· ·dismisses the petition, the judge promptly shall issue an order denying relief. The order shall be· filed arid served as provided in Rule 114. · .. - i.

~; (2) If the judge grants the petition, the judge promptly

657

§ 41:56 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES .AND .. RELIEF

·shall issu~ .. an' order.- granting a: specific form. of, relief,: and is­, . · ·. SU~ any $Uppl~mentary .orders rappr9pfi,at.e to· the proper ;c;lis:­. · . positioµ of th~ caee.:;T4.~ o~Q.~~.1sh~U be_,J;iled and seryed as .. :Pr,ovided in.Rule U,4.i· . : :' .. . . . . : , : •·. ,.. · :

, 1 (E) . If the judge disposes: of the. case in open court in the .. i>.r~se#ce,·o~ tJi~ (iefepdaD:t afthe '.coiiclµsion or' th~. he.aring,. the · jud¢e :sh.all adyise .the.defendant on the record Of the right to : ·.appeal'.ftom ·thtHin:al.oraer'dispo$~I\g· of tlie petition and of ~he )'time· within'. which the·appeal must be taken. lfthe.·casEf'is tal{en' ttnae~· advisement, ·or "When .thEf defendant is ript present 'in :open court, the judge~-~ oy ;certified ·mail, return receipt requested; shall :adVise thera~fendant of"the right: to appeal from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time

.:limits~within:whicli the l1ppealtnust be:filed.'. -::·: · -~ · "... " .. v"" \ .. • • • • . • ; • ~ ~ : ! , , .

. . .. · .... ·" ' ~ . •F.:

§ ·41:57 Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9541 to 954~Pennsylvania I ~

, <. , , • Rule .. o.f C~al Pr.,ce4Ufe. 90~Case law j· ~l, Fo~:Ca$S, l~~·~on .. Rule 1 908.,s.e~; e.g~, Co~ ... ~ ... Brapey, .604J:Pa.

4.59, .986A.~ct128 .. {2009).JRule of Criminal Proc~4ure w.hich :.· p:rovid~s .th.at-~ po~tcoµ.yj~tion reljef heaxjng .. shall b.~ before a

judge and that t:ti~ . .Juqge:_shall_detepnine all Il).8.te;rlal issu~s, Pannot trump a. Sixth AmendmeJ,1.t rjght to a juzy trial, if indeed orieje~~~s~)~·< ._.:· ~.:/· .·.·~J~: . : • .. ·-.<~··; · .... ·.-_ .· ·· · '.. .

,,, I •• ( . '···. . ). I ·. ;

§ 4~;58 ~ P~~syly~a Post Convi~ti.o:it'lteµef.Act'und~r 42 · · '. · · · . Pa.. Cons. Stat: §§ 9541 to 9546--Pemisylv&nia,.

·-:~ .,. ' :.Rule ofCrimmal Procedme '90~Text', . . .. , • t t t I • _ · j , • i. ! •• , · • . •• • ;~ ~ ·~ • ·

· . 'Rule1• 909. Procedtlr~s for Petitions bi ~~ath Penalty

.. '. Cas~s: Stays o(· EXecutio~ of Sentenc.~; Hearinli; Disposi-" · tion:·:· · · · .. · · · ·"· · ·

I f'\ • : I t ? ! '. ~ , '.. · t • ' .~-

(A)· Stays of Execution ;, . . . . .. 1 ••• , •. <i) .Jn.: a~.cas.~i~ which t4~ 1 .defe~dant .. h.as received a ·-. .· .. ~entence.:0£.d~ath, f:lny reque.st {or ·a stay of.~xec~~~on of

sentence should be made in the petition for: post-con,viction : . , : ; ~olla~e,~al ~eli~f~ ; . . _. · . .. , , .. ; . ~", : i 1 · (2) ln ._all cases~ in· which ~, .. stay. of. executio.n ;ha;S been

~: iprqperly.gr;anted, -the stay. sh~l ~emaj.n in effect through_ the conclusion of all PCRA proceeding~, in~l~dh:~g. review. in· .t.he

. ::; ~~P,re~~ Oourt of :p~nnsylv1api~,_9r·t~e exp~atfo~~of time for . : seeking such revi_~w. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1:. L : . : ~

(B) Hearing; Disposition .'. ·'.1: , '""• ~ • ;

. , (1) No more th~n, 2.0 days after the CommQnwealth files

658

PENNSYLVANIA: §:41:58

an ·answer pursuant ,to Rule. 90.6(E)(l). or (E)(2), or if no answer.is .. filed ·as permitted in: Rule 906(E,)(2),. within 20 days .after the. expiration of the time for answering,, the judge shall review the. petition, 1the-.Oommonwealtlfsuanswer, if any, and other.matters of.,record ,relating.tost}le defendant's claim(s), ;and shajl ~determine whether· an; evidentiary hear-ing is required. ~ ... • , . : : .. · · '. r: .. · · ; . · · · 11 . • • · · • ~ •.•. , · ••

(2) If the judge is satisfied from this review that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant

" · .is· .not entitled to post-conviction :c6llateral relief, .. and no :le':' gitimate pur.pose would be sePVed.by:anY further .proceedings.

(a) :Thejudge,shall give~notice trithe pames·ofthe inten­. tion" .to·_ dismiss the p~ti.tipn ... ~d .shall st.a~~ in the. notice . ih~ re~sons. for ~he t~~~sal. : , . , : , (I.

·: .... :~ (b) ·The!defendant...may. r.espond to_the; p;roposed.1dis-.; ;missal wi·thin. 20 :daY.~ 0£ the: date! o(the. noticet · ._, .. ~-: -

(c) order that an• evidentiary hearing be'.•held on ·a~ date . · ' certain.. . · · · . ·: " ·: : ' · .'.· ' . (3) -If the judge determines that1 an1 :evidentiary heanng is required~ the judge: shaU·'enter:an ·order setting· a date· certain for. ·the. hearing, . which ·shall not·· be . scheduled. for fewer· than

· 10 days or.more·thanJ45.days from the date!·of.the order. The judge:may,-for gdoa··cause shown, .grant leav.e to continue the

): 1 hearing. Nd moreithan 90:days after the coil.clusion-ofthe1ev­iidentiary·hearing, the judge:shall dispos~ of the petition.; :

· · ··· · ·(4)'When:th:e 90-day·tim.e~periods in-·paragraphs· (B)(2)(c) . and (B)(3)·must ·be delayed; .the judge, .for good: cause shown,

_ , : may;.enter·an ordet~extendingrthe'i,period for not longer.than · 30dayS~" .. . ,: · ·:1 >. ::-o.~~:· · · :l ':~-. · "' _,, ·1 ._

.r ; .(5} If:the~judge'.doe1hfot··act within the 90~days mail.dated · : :by paragraphs· ,(B)(2)(c) ~and: (B)(3), orLwithin the ·-ao ·day­. . extenaj_on; permitted: by par.agraph: (B)(4),. the clerk :of courts

, r shal~ send:\a. notice' to the. judge ·.-that: the time period·· for ., :disposingiof.the petition· haa ;expi.red.,The".cler-k·shall eriter

. , the·da.te)and tinie·of the:notice;on the. dock~t, and shall send .. "" .. a copy· of .the .. notice. ~to; the .a~tp~ey fQr the Commonwealth,

t;lle defendant;· and d,efeJ:lS0 ~O\lllSel,: if ,any,. '. . . , . ; . : , .. (6). If the judge does·not:dispose of.the:defendant's,petition

- ·-~. ·Within 30 days- of: the cleJ;'k-)of,:courts~ notice, ._the clerk--im­" .. · mediately·shaltsend a, notice of therjudge's, non-compliance

~ to· the :-.Supreme: Court ... T}le i clerk: ·sh.all. e~ter the ,.~te ,and , ~. · .time of the notice qµ .th~ do9k~t;. ~:Qd ~shall .s~nd a q9py of1.the -~· , . notice to the attQr)'.l~y .fot;";~e:-Oonu;noµ'Ye~lth, the defe~_ant, , .. · ':lll~ 1 defense:coups~l,:.if ~Y·. . . . . . .: . ;-_ ·, .. !' ·; ••••

• i: (7) When th~· petition for post-£onvi~tion1c0Uateral relief is ... disIPissed·;by order o_f.tpe cp,urt: ;·. .. . .. ·

,659

§ 41:58 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(a)' the clerk iriunediately shall· furnish a copy of the or­der by.. mail or personal delivery to the Prothonotary of the Supreme·Court, the attorney for the· Commonwealth, the defendant; and .defense counsel, if any. . .

(b) The· order shall advisEfthe defendant of the right to appeal from the final order disposing ·of the petition, and of the time within which the appeal must.be taken .

.' '.-" .. . . ~

§ 41:59 r ;Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§. 9541 to 954&--Pennsylvania · Rule.of.Criminal Procedure 909-Case law

· For case law ·on .Rule ·909 see, e.g., Com. v. 'Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (if an offer~of'proof supporting a petition

· for postconviction relief is insufficient to establish a prima facie case, or if the allegations in!the petition are refuted ·by the

· existing record~ an evidentiary hearing is unwarranted); Com. v. Watkins, 108 A.3d 692 (Pa. 2014) (the judge in. a death

: penalty case, after notjce to .th~. parties, may dismiss a PCRA petition when there ar~ no genuine.:issues· concerning any ma­terial fact, the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction relief, and uo legitimate purpose would ·be· served. by any further proceedings; to obtain reversal of a. PCRA court's decision to dismiss ·a petition without. a hearing, an ·-appellant must show that he raised a genuine issue· of fact which,. ff resolved ·in his .favor, would have. entitled .him to. relief, or that the PCRA court otherwise abus.ed its discretion; PCRA court does not abuse its discretion merely by dl~missing.some claims without a.hearing and conducting an evidentiary hearing on other claims);· Com. v. Feqrs, .624 Pa. 446;· 86 A.3d 795 (201,4),:(PCRA court has

-.discretion to dismiss a petition if it is satisfied .there ate no genti.ine. issues concerriing.any material fact or ~ny other legiti­mate purposes for an evidentiary hearing); Com. v. Rivera, 619

-Pa. 464, 65 A.3d 290:(201;3) (Rule 909 requires the PCRA court ' to provide a capital defendant ·with notice ·of the court's ·intent

; to dismiss the PCRA petition, and· further obliges the PCRA court to "state in.the notice\ the reasons for the dismissal"; once such notice is delivered to. ~e 'petitioner, tlie capital defendant

·has 20 days in· which to . respond and· cure~ the perceived deficiencies; the· court failed tO. 'give appellant the full 20 days

, . to respond· to its pre-dismissal notice mandated ·by ~ule 909; as . · t~e i~sriaii.ce of the PORA court's opinion was· the first time Ap­. · · peltant was notified of the specific reasons for· dismissal of his

petition, he did not have a mea·nin'.gful opportu.ility to "cure" · the defects· in· ·his petition as contemplated by our ru'les; this

non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 909 necessitates

660

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:59

a global remand); Com. v. Jones, 617 Pa. ·587,. 54A.3~·14 (2012) (trial court's notice provided, to· petitio~er for post-conviction ·relief under PCRA that petition was to be dismissed as untimely was adequate under ·rule of.criminal prpcedure requir­ing trial court to provide· pre;.dismissal notice of reasons for dis­missal .to' capital petitioners, as: further explanation of reasons

.. for; dismissal would not have_ allowed petitioner to cure untimeliness of PCRA petition);. Com. v. Johnson, 619 Pa. 387, 64 A.ad 622 (2013) ("This Court is l,Ulable to conduct effective appellate review in light of the PCRA court's determination that many of .appellant's :claims. were waived or previously litigated without any recognition for this Court's developing case law in the years between the filing of the PCRA petition in

. 1998 ·and the opinion in support of dismissal nine years later. Many of the issues were dismissed for pleading deficiencies, which should have. been resolved ·by the PCRA court within the notice of intent to dismiss process." Remand was required for postconviction court to resolve petitioner's claims that court of

.. common pleas erroneously foun4 ·were waived on .the basis of faih~re to include them in the, pleadings, .and any claims of inef• fective assistance of couns~l); Com. , v. Simpson; 620 Pa. 60, 66 A.3d 253 (2013) (to entitle himself to a hearing on a petition for postconviction re~ief, a .petitioner must raise an. issue. of. fact, which,' if resolved in his favor, . would justify relief; Supreme Court reviews for an abuse, of. discretion determination that no hearing was necessary· on petition for postconviction relief becaus~ it raise4 no genuine issues of.material fac~); Com.· v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280, · 25 A.ad· 277 (2011) (notice of a court's intention to dismiss is required only where the trial court, after review· of the ,petition, any answer py 'the Commonwealth thereto~ and any other matters. of record, determines that a

. ·hearing is ·not necessary, ·that the petitioner is not entitled' to postconviction relief, and that: no further proceedings are nec­essary; court has the discretion to dismiss a petition without a'. hearing when the ·court is satisfied that there are -no genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not ·entitled to postconviction collateral relief, and no "legitimate

. purpose w.ould be served by any further proceedings; to obtain reversal of a PCRA court's decision to dismiss a petition' without a hearing, anJ appellant must show that he raised a genuine ·is:.:

· sue of fact which, if resolved in his favor, ·would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise abused its discretion jn denying a hearing); ;Com. v. Hanible,. 612 Pa~ 183, 30 A;3d 426 (2011), cert. denied, 133 S .. ct. 835, 184 L. Ed. 2d 662. (2013) '(under Pa. R. Crim. P. 909, PORA court has the discretion to dismiss a petition without a hearing when the ·court is satisfied

661

§ 41:59 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES· AND· RELIEF

· that there are ··no genUine.- issues ·.concerning. any, material fact, . the defendant is; not entitl~d to; postconyiction ·collateral 1 relief,

.· and ·'no.· legitimate purpose·. would ·be, served by any further ·· proceediiigs); Com. v. · Smith, 609: Pa. 605, 17 A.ad 87a (2011)

(Rule 909(B) reqwres a cotirt to: hold· an evidentiary hearing on all genuine issues of material-fact raised· in a· capital PGRA pe­tition; PCRA ·court's decision not; to· hold a hearing.-will only ·be reversed when the court abused its; discretion); Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 606·Pa. '64, ,994A.2d· 1091 (2010) (PCRA court need not ·hold a hearing on eveiy issue· appellant raises, as a ihearing

· is· only required· on "genuine.issues·of.material fact~)~ -~ . . . ' i 1 . ' . ' . ; ~ :

11': ··; ; ':I; r, ,,1 :. -. _;_ •'

§ 41:60 · Pennsylvania Post Convictfon Relief Act under 42 Pa. Cons •. Stat~ §§ 9541 to 9546-Penilsylvania · . · · Rule of Criminal Procedure ·910-Text. · . .

.J:

.;. 'Rule_ ~10. Appeal ···- ·. _,... . . • ! . An order granting, den:fing; 'dismissing; or o·~herwis~ fina~ly · · disposing of a ·petition for· post~conviction collateral relief ·shall

constitute' a final ord~r for pttryo~es of appeal.· ·.·,l 1!

For ·case)aw on·Rule .9~0, see~1 e.g.·; Pom. v. Scarb~rough,, 619 Pa. =a5a, · 64 A.ad 602 (2018) (niotiOn for postconviction forensic DNA testing .. was :a: ·fihal._and _appealable· order)~ - · · · · ·

: . • I • - : r r ' I _. ' - ' ; - ' ' • • 0

'.

1

:' ~ ~ I ~ 1, .' ' • 1

§ '41:61. Writ of habe~s ~orpus ·under 42 'Pa. ·cons. Stat• .: " : §§ 6501 ·to 6505 . ) ' .. · • I • ; •

· -'!'he. ~~it pf h~bea~. cQr~ti~ 1

is,. a. po-~tponvicti~n ~~~e_dy in PenJ?.~YlV~Il:la~ Hpw~ve.r, ~h~rea~; p:qor to. 1966 habe~s co~eus ~as .the pri.,_cipal po~tconvict~on re;inedy jn Pennsy,lyaaja, today it' is, a secondary remedy· aviµlaple' only in cas~s where' 'the groµnd for relief. is not cogllizable. wider the. PCRA. -.: . . . .

In Pennsyly~a; the_· writ. pf.habeas· corpus is st~tutorily ~utho­tjzed by:. C\la.pt,~r 65 ("Habeas Car.pus") of. Part'.~.J"Actions, Pir.oceedings and .Ot;p.e;r Matt~rs Gel\erally') of.'fjtle 42 ('~~µdi­cjary, and ,J~cia]. .17~ceQ.qre'~) of thE\ Pennsylvani~, Consol~da~d Statl;lt~s An~otated: (t42 .. Pa~. Cons .. Stat. Ann.·.§ ~50t:through §6505) ... ; . '. '·. •'. ... .. . 1 •. ·:· ·~· _.,.:_ • •

. Under 1provisions of. both .th.e ;Pennsylvania hab~as corpus ·stat­ute. and the Pennsylvania_ -P,CRA~ .. however,- :the · PCRA, and: not the:writ of habeas corpus, must be used to launch a Gollateral1at­tack on· ti; Pennsylvania. conviction;or sent~nce :or to raise any claim·: for relief cognizable· under the PCRA. 42 Pa, Cons. Stat. Ann. § 650a(b). (where a person is restrained by virtue -of sentence

662

I

,..

PENNSYLVANIA :.'··' ''-· § 41:63

after. conviction for a Criminal offense, the Writ ·of habeas· corpus shall not be available if a remedy "may .be: had' 'by postconviction hearing proceedings ·authorized'by·law); 42 Pai Cons. Stat. Aiui~ § 9542 (PCRA .shal~ 'be sole, D1.ea~s of ootaiiiin:g ·collateral. relief and encompasses. aU 'Other ·co~tjn · Ia~ arirl: statutocy '~en;iedies, including :habeas· corpus ·and coram::zmois).· Tlitis~ ·the writ· of ha~ be as· corpus may be·· used· td · obtain- postcon:triction :reMef: in Pennsylvania· only: when ·the ·ground ·ror· telief cahriot 1 be·· raised via the PCRA. 'As· a~ practfoal matter~ this; means· that since: 1988; when ·the PCRA was enacted; ~Pehnsylvaltja postconvictfoil! ha). bea~ ·reli'ef has been ·availaole•olily t~ raise· c~aims· unrelated·:to the validity: of the· conviction~ or· •sentence~ Com. v:· Hackett, 598 Pa. 35-0, 362-363/956 1 A.2d:9~8, '985-986 (2008);·The wiit·ofha­beas corpus· shall~ not be;)ivailable"if a'rem~dy. may··be' had '.by postconviction 'hearing proceemngs authorized; by1aw. i : ; •

• I ~ •• ·~;, ' • : ' -i • .' • • ; ·• ~ l-" ' . ' •. '. J -~ f. '. ') l j : ' • ! ·. f I t ·. ~ . ' J

§·41:62 · Writiof ·habeas corplu.;under42 Pa~ Cons/StatJ· .l : ' .. '§§ 6501 t0,6501)..;...Filmir L · c~ · "/ '.'" . ' 1 ' :_.

.. ;• ·,'t •' +l' f·,· ~-~:_ ~r- .. , ' -I .,:. ' ·~-,~: ,·' •• ;

.: A: .. ~~nnsyly~ni~;·~~pe~s. cpr~.µs·~e~it~c#1may be ~ed vvi~h ~~y . JU~ge. of~ ·coµrt of.r~~o~q. 4~ 1 P~.j:fo;n~;.Stat. Ann.§ 6~02(a). A,. hhb~ae cori)~~ p~titio1i cit;i!leii,gipg ~~pim~al coiifinem~nt shall be fil~~ · w~~h. t~e. c~e~k. pf. q~~ta, · o~ .~h~. ~$trict in w~ch. ~he· o~der ~~cth;1g the' ~!lll;finem~h~ )V~~ eµ~~ed~:. Jlule 1_98(A), ;ea~ R .. Crinl, Proc .. A'-1ab~as co~pus· pet~tj.on' cballengiilg. the conditit>ris~. of. crim­in,aI.' coiifin~me'~t shall)~e· ~led'.'with the. c~~rk of courts of ·~b'e j~dicial distii.ct. in. -wh.ich~ th~' i>e,titione:r is 'cqn;fin~d .. Rule. 108(B), P~. R. Crim .. Pr'oc. : · ·' " .._ · . . : : .. :·.'. ·; _ . . " ·. ·~ :· "·; ·:·

: .~~ ~~p.ri.syivaiµ!l; 'a h.ab~aS: cocyus '. proce~di~g i$ ~. civil; act~on: S~e, e.g., :C~adw~ck. v. Gaulfield, ·2003 ·P4 Sup.e~ 330,. ,8;34 ~ .. ~d 5.62 (2Q~$) (traditionally,~ ~t of.habeaS,CQrpUS is a,9i-yil rem-edy.~hat tests t~e l,egali.ty of1the.~et~p.pon). .. ~ . ·

t : ; t .• ' J • ; ' ·, f _: r ~ ; ' : 1 ' ' ' . • I_ -- l' • • J ' • J -~ 'I ~ !•' ,

§ ~1:63 ~i1t of}\~~.e,,s con>µ&,uP,~~~~42·P ..... C9~s·:~ta~T···· ... · , : , . , . . §§ 650~-.t~~ ~~~~~Os~o~"tj~~~O~. ~lief . , : . ·. , .. ,-· ..

... ;Forcase law on.~the availability:of-postconviction habeas,corpus relief in ·Pennsylvania.1since enactment of the PCRA in 1988, see, e~g.,-.com. v.~Turner;6221Pa. 318, 80 A3d 754{2013),·cert. denied; 134 S. Ct.- .17.71, 188 L.· Ed.:· 2d :602: (2014) (writ of habeas•corpus exists only in eases in which:1there is no i·remedy ·under the. Post Conviction· ~elief Act); Com. v. Judge, 591 Pa-. 126~ 916 A.2d 511 (2007) ;(death sentence 'C°as.e; pending federal proceedings ,do :not justify.the dismissal.of.a petition under the.PORA;. the ,PGRA subsumes -all forms of. co.llateral' ·relief; including habeas corpus, . to. the" extent. that a-· remedy .is available ·under ·such.· enacqnent; we have previbusly held :that claims of.ineffective assistance re•

663

· STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

lated to counsel's failure to perfect a direct appeal were cogniza­ble under the PCRA, notwithstanding the fact. that such claims did not. precis.ely implicate the adjudication-.of guilt or innocence; however, that_:t~s court has never held that .. habeas ·corpus, can­not P:r.o\tjde ~:separate. remedy, in ~ppropriate circumstances; indeed, the ·boundaries ,of ·cogni~~ble claims under the PCRA can only be extended so .f~· as is. consistent with the .purposes of the sta~ute, and we believe that petitip:p.er's claim concerning his d~portation :f:rom Canada to face· a death sentence (alls outside the i~tended. scop~ of the PCRA; petitioner is not asserting his b1-nocenc~. of the underlying crimes. or th~t his sentence was illegal when imposed; his claim is that. executing him would violate international, law. because . Canada; violated. his tights ·under the International Cov~nant fo.r Civil ~nd Political Rights ~ICCPR) by deporting hi.m :tQ fl}ce a sentence .of death without obt~ning as~ surances that the sentence would not be imposed; this claim has no connection to the truth-deten;n;i~g process and do not render the underlying adjudication of guilt. or innocence,. which took place i~ the United ~tates. more than te~. years earlier, unreli­able; since the PCRA ~doe~ ·not p~ovi,de a remedy for .Petitioner's claims regarding his clajni th~J his.· deJ,?qrtati~.n from Canada violated the ICCPR, they inay }le, raised m a petition for Writ of h~beas corpu~); Com. v. · West~ .5~.5 P.a ... 483~ 938 ,A.2,d 1034 (200~) (the privilege of the .writ of.~a~~as co_rpu~ pas ~~t been suspended iri this Commonwealth; the remedy''of'habeas" corpus exists for the rare instanc·e. where· the "PCRA offers no remedy; West's substantive due process challengs to the continuing validity. of his judgment of sentence, following nine years of pre-incarc~ration delay, falls outside 'the ambit ·of'the 'potential clainls cognizable under the PCRA; ·West's. claim does· not im.plicate 'the truth determining process underlying his. conviction and· sentence, nor does it implicate the legality of the sentence imposed; rather, West asserts that incarcerating him on such a sentence after the significant delay between· the· time of sentencing ·and the time he was recalled is fundamentally unfair· and therefore constitution­ally infirm; substantive. du,e. process rights" of. West, who was released on bond pending appeal, were not. violated by· nine.:. year delay between the affi.rmance of his judgment of sentence and his recommitment to prison to· serV'e his sentence;. delay was .caused, no.t by a deliberate act of the .. government, but rather by negligence, and fact that trial transcript was missing· and that certain evidence might be stale, allegedly preventing defendant from·· asserting any meritorious claim~ for. review, did not estab­lish that defendant suffered actual prejudice. as a result of the nine-year delay, given that defendant asserted that the only claim he would have sought to pursue in· a: further appeal was the same

664

PENNSYLVANIA i': § 41:65

suppression claim that: he had already litigated on direct appeal); Com. v. Greer, 2004 PA Super 3, 866 A.2d 433. (2005).(postconvic­tion habeas petition treated as untimely PCRA petition, and dismissed).

'· . ·i·

§ 41:64 Judicial review of certain orders .and decisiOns of the Pennsylvania Board of Pr()bation and Parole

! under 42, Pa. Cons; Stat. § 763(a) , Judicial revfew··of certain· final order~ and· decisfons ··of the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and P,arole denying adririnistra~ tive relief is anoth'.er Penilsylvariia. posteonvictiOn rem~dy. Prison­ers, parolees and probationers denied requested administrative relief by the Board may · apperu such a denial of adriiinisttative relief to the· Commonwealth Court. This is au~horized by ·42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.·§ 763(a). · Befote seeking such judicial review the prisoner. or parolee. must :fiist exhaust his ad.Inillistrative reme-dies, including administrative appeals. . . ·

:A petitio~ to the Commonwealth Court I for appellate review. of a ·Board of Probatfon and Parole order or decision shall be· filed wit~ the Prothonotary'. of the. Commonwealth C,oU:rt w'i~hin · 30 days 'after entry of the· order or decision. ··Rule 1512(a)(l); ·Pa·. R. App. Proc. · · · . ' .· . . ·4.s.-required by .2 ·Pa. Cons. Stat .. Ann'.' § 704, wh~n judicial review of the parole board's deni~l o.f administ~ative. relie.f 'is sought, the "scope of revie~ is .. limiteg to a':4e:terpiinat~·an of whether the Boarµ's findings are suppoi;ted by sub,,tantial eyi­dence, whethe~ an error of:law. was .co~tted, .Elµd wheth~r, any o~ the. p!irolee',s constitut~o~~l. :f.igh:~s ~er~ viofa~d/' . . . . r. : ' ' ..

.. . ; : ; . • .. - • ' j • : . . .• "

§ .41!65,. Judicial review ·of certain orders 'and decisions. of the Pennsylv~ia Board. of P~obatfon · m.id.· ~arol~ ..

. under 42 Pa. Cori~~ Stat. § 76S(a)-dase ·Iaw .. '. ...•.. ' . . ' . ' ·. ' ' ' . ~ '. . " '. '· .

For .case law on appellate judicial review by the Commonwealth Court,' under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat: :Ann. § .763(a), of orders: and: deci­sions of the Pennsylvania Board. of ·Probation .and Parole, see; e.g., Goods v. Pennsylvania Bd.: of Probation and Parole, 590. Pa. 132, :912 A2d 226 (2006) (parolee. appealed order of the Board ·of Probation and Parole, denying his! reque·st. for ·administrative relief from Board order recommitting him as: a technical parole violator; parole revocation hearings are ·subject to .stan4ard·of review set. forth in the Administrative Law and Procedure Act;·· it would. be proper and salutary for .Board! of Probation1 and Parole to adopt a policy which would· require a parolee to raise any and all ripe claims at the initial parole revocatic>n hearing in order to preserve them for administrative appellate review; here, the

665

§ 41:85 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND· RELIEF

Board! improperly ·deemed that·· a. state 'prisoner's:· failure to chal­lenge. the timeliness of an ·administrative parole. revocation hear:.. ing at'. the: hearing' itself ·con.stituted ·a. waiver: of the timeliness question); Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (inmate, who was recom­mitted as·a.convicted·parole violatot,• was not entitled. to credit on his •originalt sen~nce ·for the period 'Of' time· he-was ·incarcerated on both the new criminal charges ·and the Board of Probation and ~~rQle'~ w~~a~t: :or: cJet~~n~r ); . <Jr~ggs v. Pennsylvania. Bd . .. of

· Pr_~batwn ,Cf~ .Jt(l,rol~,, _917. J\.2<;1 ~10 (Pa.;Co~w~. C~~ ,20.07) (the B.oard. of Probation. and. Parole recommitted parolee .. to a state correctional institution. to serVe siX months backtune as· a tecliiri~ cal .. pa_,rol~, ~olat0r, ~P.d th~ parolee a:ppea~eci;. on a .·petitio~, for reyiew fr!lm ·Eli .d~cis.ion of the 5oard of :l~ro~ation · ~nd Parole, .~he Commonwealth Court reYiews whether.the Board's-findings.are s~pp9rteq, ;~y'. ~'1bs~antia\ evi4ep.ce~: ~q~si$ten,t. witlt law, _a.np whether the Board viola~ed_ 1 ~qnat~tu.t~on~l .right~); R~a:vi,$.: v~ ff!r:z,~sylf!qnia, Bd ... of.Probaticrn ~and Parole,. ~09. A .. 2d . 2a · (Pa. 1

·comziiw.: q~. 2006). _(pa~olee .s_o~gh~ ~eview ()f .de~isfon . fi:q#~. ,the $fate Boarq of:Prob~tion ~dlJ>afo~~,:·reco~~t~ingp.im to sefy.e 24 mon~hs' 'backtiine as 8:. techriica~. aild. convicted .parole y;iol8.t9r; parolee's appomted counsel petitioned for leave to withdraw;, ~n jndigent parole8- is entitled to appointed c9unsel on appeal, ·but ~his right' drles ~ot:require appointed .counsel t~ ·prosecute a frivo­.fou'.s appea~;· therefore; when in 'the 'exercise of his professional jud~ent, counsel detemllnes the iss'ues 'raised' are wholly frivo­lous,i and' when' this' ;court conchrs,. courisel will 'be permitfod to W!thdiaw;: a wh6lly'ftivolous :appeal:is one. completely' devoid .of points that might arguably support-' ah appeal; here,·;counsel's witµ~~aw~l lllO.~i~n . ~~. grante;d); _.Pe.tty. ~· Pennsylv<fnia 8d .. of Probat~on. and Parole; ·896 A.2dr. 6~'3 '{Pa~· Corimiw. Ct. 2006) (pa:­rote'. recominit!llent · cl'aim'; inlnai10, :Who. w~s' recommitted as technical I' parole violator for ·violation. of pkrole' :conditions, petitioned ·for. review from ·decisfon :of._the· P~nnsylvania Board of Probation'."'and ·Parole: denying his·· application for administrative relief; 0 .the· scope .an.d standard of review for this court's review of ari.i action· ·of the. Board isi limited to~ a. determination of whether the ·:Board's ·findings.' are ·.s\lpported· by··.substantial:·evfdence, . w:hether an .error, of .law, was· committed, or,. whether any. of. the p·arolee~s .. ·constit.utional ;rights we.re· :violated);·.De'tar. v. Pehnsylvania Bd .. · .. of-Probation. 1an:d!Parolei~B90 A.2.d. 27 {Pa. Commw.:,Ct~· 2006)1 .(recommitted :parole violator. petitioned for. review lof. a. decision~ of. the. :Board of Probation andriParole, ·No~ 3994~P, denying his·~equest for· credit toward ·his :l"~calculated sentence;: we hold that in-patient, dr.tig: and: alcohol treatment program· at community correction centef .. was) not sufficiently

. 666

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:85

custodial to entitle recommitted ·parole viOlator t6i credit· for. tinie se~ed in program);J.Johnson··v; Pennsylvania Bd~ of Probation and Parole;'. 890 A2d 45 {Par.: Commwr Ct.:. 2006) (claim .that .Board . did no.t hold ·revocation hearing. within 120 ·days ,,from: . ..the date the· Bo.ard,received ·official verification ,of:defendant's· guilty plea; when the timeliness :of a revocation hearing is challenged,i.the Board· of Probation' and1Parol~''.bears the:burderi ·of .proving by a prepop.deranee of the· evidehc~ that _th&hearing w~s ·timely~; ·weigle v. Pennsyluc:piia Bd~· of'Prbbation and- Parqle; 886jA.2d .1183 (Pa. C()mmw. ·ct.' 2005) (j)etjti6ner ·scmghtjjutlicial review of1 determi~ riatiQn of Board of Prob~tfon · and Parole denying him credit against ·sentence for 'tune· .Sperit in cdmrirq.nity correctioriS center; appellate' ·revie~· ·of a.· denial. of cretlit against s:entenc~ by· the Board fs liriiited· to deteriirlriing·whether the'Bo·ard's findings are 's'tlpported by 'su~stantia1 eVid~n~e, ;are ~# ac-~ordance. With "the law and. whetner constitutional Tights have. b.een. Violated; the reyl~wii;\g cotirt will ·foterfere · W:ith· the . Board's·· ex~l'c1se Of adriiimstrative' discretion ohly ·where it· has been .. exercised in an aroitrary 9r capnCious 'man:nerY; Lee· ·v ... t :Fenn:&ylvan'io~ Bd." of Probatiorf·an'd ·Parole~· 885 · A~2d ·634 (Pa. Coimnw~ 'Ct~· 2005) (parolee· ·sought re'view of decision of"Board of :Probation and' Pa~ role denYi,n'.g;h.ls· request tor administrative review 'of otder recoil~ nrltt~g ~·~as .a .technica,l p~fole Yl«?J.atot; J~di~~l t~view ofa :p~­role r~coDlmitment order of .the Boatd1 or Probation and. Parole IS limited· to determimng ·whether: tlle'.Board cdi;nmitted ii 'constitU~ tional violation or an error of law and whether' the :findings of fact are supp~rted by substanti~ eviqence); Hou$er v~ .PennsyJ1!.q,nig, BtL ~of ProbatiOn arid· Paro·le, .'. 87 4. A,2d' · 1276 ·(Pa~· Cchnriiw. Ct. 2005)_ (ihmate~"wliaae· parole was revo'ltea;.,petitions "for review of the : aen~al '1of the inn1ate1S.. request·:'for : administra'tive relief; petitione~ asserts that the:_Pe~ylv~~'Board~df Probation and Parole erred in denying him cremt lfbr· the) (J'O• daytthe spent in ·Renewal Inc .. Drug. and Alcohol Inpatient :Program;. at issue is :whether Renewal's restrictions.on inmate·were so: onerous that he was not·. "at liberty oil parole," thus entitling:him· to credit to­ward his maximum sentence;. a. reviewing~ court will not interfere with, the Board's determinatfoni unless. it acts: arbitrarily ,or plainly. abu8es its discretion);: Price v . .Pennsyl'Vania Bd . . of Proba .. tion and Parole, 863 A~2d 173 (Pa ... Coµimw .. Ct. 2004) (review· of decision .of Board: recommitting petitioner to; .a state correctional institution as a-technical parole violator; our1 scope·.of review of a Board's recommittal' o:rd~r'.isJimited to determining. whether nec­essary. findings were supporled;bysubstantial evidence,. whether an error of.law .was· committed, .. or whether constitutional rights :were violated); Torres· U~ .PennsylVania,. Bd. of Probation and Parole, .861A2d394 (Pa. :Coinmw~ Ct. 2004).(reYiew of a decision'.Of the

667

§ .41:65 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

Pennsylvania Board of· Probation and Parole that denied Torres' request for credit toward his·. recalculated sentence .for time. spent in inpatient dritg and alcohol rehabilitation facility;· here, the pa­role· violator was: not at liberty on parole . under the terms of the Parole·Act during his. initial 45 day period of time· at inpatient drug· and alcohol rehabilitation facility, and thus,: violator was e~titled to credit· for that period : of. .time in. recalculating· his sentence, where.during that.perioq of time he w~s under 24 hour supervision, and·.he WR$ .not permitted to make required trips outside th~ facility without an escort); .'Wagn~r v. Pennsylvania !Jd. of :P,robatiori and Parqle, 846 A..2~.187 (P~~ Com:µiw. Ct. 2004) (recommi~ted. parol~ .. violator appeal~d decis.ion .of the Board ~ecalculating bis pa;role yiolation ma.Ximuni .. dat~; violator \YRS not entitled to.credit on his maximum.sentence for time spent at a community corrections center~ i~ an fopatient program, before his recommitment'; a re,viewing court Will not interfere with the 4etermi1?-~~ion of Boar~ goyerni~~ cr~dit foj:- time spept. py a parolee iµ. confinement against his sentence unless the Board acts 1+1rbitrarily or plainly ab.1:1ses its· d~scretion); .Willis v. Pennsylvania Bq. of Proba~ion a~d F!,aro{e, 842 A.~d 490 (fa. 9om~w ... Ct .. · 2004) {1:'ecommitted: parole violator p,etitiOned . .for review of decision ~f the BQar~ of Probatioµ, an.d Parole. qenying his request for .administrat~v~ relief; the evidence s~ppo;rts the Bo~rd's r~fusal to -~redit parole vicilator with time spent ill in­patient ·drug an~. alcohol treat~e.nt facility against maximum wrm ex:piration da~)_.. . . . . '' ' . . . . . ' .

§ 41':66 ; Judici&l reView '.of certain ord~rs and d~cisioils of the Pe~sylvania. Board oi P:r~batiQn and Parole or prison officials tinder 42 Pa. dons. Stat. § 761-C~se .law reg~d.ing ~rigin&,l jurisdic;tioµ qf the. c.ommonweal~h ~ouri... ·· · · · . . ·

For related .. case law involving the original jurisdiation :of the Commonwealth Court authorized. by 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 761, see, e.g., Brown v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections,, 622 Pa. 742, 8l ,A.3d 814 (2013) (Commonwealth Court lacked juris­diction to consider inmate's· habeas petition alleging that his confinement was illegal due to an alleged failure of the. prison to produce written sentencing order related to judgment of sentence entered against' him, but, rather than dismiss· petition, appropri­ate course was to transfer matter· to· the court of record. from which.inmate~s judgment of sentence· originated.;); Clark: v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155 (Pa. Commw. Ct.·2007•):(inmates, whQse death sen­tences '.for serious· criminal . offenses had been vacated ·or over­turned, did not have a protected liberty:interest. in beingi confined outside of .the Capital Case· Unit (CCU); inmates were not

668

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:66

entitled, as a matter. of due pro·cess, to be released from CCU into general prison population; inmates . failed to demonstrate that cpnfinement. in CCU imposed atypical and sigajficant hardships in relation to the 9rdinary, incidents of prison life); Hall v. Pen~sylvania Bd. of Prqbation and Parole, 5.78 Pa. 24~, &51 A.2d 859 (2004) (affirming order. of the Commonwealth Court· which disnµssed inmate's pro se P~.tition for review ~n the nature of Jnandamus, brought in the. original jurisdictiOn of the Com~ monwealth Court; the petition 'filed in Commonwealth. Court raised a parole denial claiin); Brown ·v. PA. Dept.' ·of Corrections~ 913 A.2d 301 (Pa. Coinmw. Ct. 2006) ca· Department of Correc­tions decision concerning: c~arges: ·of misconduct against an ·inmate are beyond this court's appellate or original jurisdictfon); Evans v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole~ 905 A.2d 595 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (inmat·e ·filed petition for review in the nature of a complaint·in mandamus, in which he alleges that the Board violated the ex ·post facto clause,of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution by·retroactively relying· oh the 1996· Amendment to what is commonly known. as the "Parole Act" to· deny his parole);· Oakman v. Department of Corrections, 903A.2d106.(Pa. Gommw. Ct. 2006) (before this court is a prose petition for review in the nature" of ·mandamus filed in our origi­nal jurisdiction by inmate Luke Oakman requesting this court to order the Department of Corrections to credit .him for time served on his original split sentence; reli~f granted);:Bl~ck v. Pennsylva~ia Dep~. of C,orrections, 889 A.2d €)72 (Pa. Qo~w~ Ct. 2005) (prison inmate petitioned. for writ ~f manda~us agai~s.~. COJ;r.ectiQnS department as means to challenge revocation of .727 days' worth of cre'dit against. his violation of probation sentence,' for .time serve~ against original .sen~enc~; pe~tion for writ of mandamus was inappropriate remedy for the claim raised; proper remedies were direct appeal or PCRA); Detar v. Beard, . a98 A.2d 26. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (prison inmate filed petition for writ of mandamus, seeltj~g cr~dit op his sentence for burgl~ .conviction for time. serv~d on subsequent offense in .another county; this court may only issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner possesses a clear legal right to· eiiforce the perforn:lance of a min­isterial act or mandatory duty, the defendant. possesses a .corre­sponding ,d~ty to perform the act, and.the petitioner p~ssesses no other adequate or approp~ate remedy; a writ of mandamus may lie to compel the Department of Corrections to properly. c:;ompute an inmate's prison sentence);. Meggett v. PennsylVaniCl Dept. of Corrections, 892 .A.2d 812 (Pa. Comriiw. Ct.· 2006), as amended, (Apr. 24, 2006) (prison intn~te brought action against Depart­ment of Corrections and Board of Probation ·and Parole, challeng­ing Department's regulation 'limiting' Afro hairstyles to: four

669

§ 41:88 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES: AND RELIEF

inches·. in length as· Violative of freedom··of religion and equal protectfon; we· h~ld ·the regulation i~ not unconstitutional); Griffin v~ :Pennsylvania Dept. <?7Do·rrectiona:, '862 A.2d ·152' (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004) (~ wrif of mandmJ\\iS will lie·t~i' co#J.peLthe Departnie#t o.f C,ort~ctions. to. properly. ·compute a pri~oner's. priso~. seiiten~e; here,. P,arolee was entitled to have· time served ln federal prison cr,e~t'~d ag~inst ne~ .. ~tate. sentence$; ~elief.granted);. Taiio, v. Be~rd, 898 A.2·d 156.(Pa: .CoJDinw. Ct. 2004) (prison inmate.filed petitio.n for-re,Vi~y{ :of decisiop. Qf.Compiissioner of Department of porre~tfons. de,nyirlg grievance .:for :imppsition of medical (:9StS, fot the' time. ~~illa~e w~s in r~stnct~v~ Jho1i1sing uiiit; we tre~t'_~his mattei; '._as a ,p~~tion for revie~ addres.sed t~ ... this c~\¢'s :otjgi~al jurisdiction;. given that 'J'ulio did not receive notice . Q~1 ~he ~ecre­tary's June~, 1999 qeci~ion,.we.prrect that Tulio be given le~ve to file a. petition for review nuµc pro.tune with this.coll:l't; a nµ;nc pro .tune '1ppeal of an 'administrative actiQn will. be :allowed wh~re there is a1sh:owing. of: breakdown in-.the ·administrative process; here,·· the Secretary.s. decision,was addressed to a facility.where Tulia was tio~ housed,·. and a failure· to properly send notice is the equivalent of negligence· on the ·part of· administrative officials); Calloway v. Pennsylvania ·Bd. of Pr.obation and Parole; 857 A2d 218 (Pa. Commw .. Ct .. 2004) (inmate· Calloway filed: a petition for review in the.nature of mandamus Elddressed to. this·cciurt's orig­inal jurisdiCtion reque.sting· tna:t ~this court order 'the Board to recalculate· the ihaximumi expiry···date· of his original· sentence tO reflect ·tRe .tiJP.~ he': served:· {1) on the county sentence (3 months and·2o 'days); :and' (2) all t~e-time he sp~nt in. confinement inclu.d­ihg his pre·sentence detention in New Jersey for·tµe:robbety ar­rest for which he <;lid not post bail while. on a· Board ··detamer (five months and 18 days)and .. the time¥ ~erved for·'the New·.Jersey s'en~nce (~o· moh~s ~d ~ 7 d~ys) ..... ·. . . . '..:." ·. . . ' . ' ..

}· . . ,. ,

~ .41:67. " ~u~ci~, r"vi~w. ~f ,~ertaih~~~rd~~s: and,; de~~si~~s ·~, ., . . . the Pennsylvama :Pepartnient of Corrections · · · · . U;D4~~-·42.P•::~~n~~"stat~ § 7~<a> ,· ,:· · .:'. ; · · .. ·: :, · · .· Another Pennsylvania postconviction remedy is judicial reView

in behalf of prison inmates; ·pursuant! to 142 :Pa. Co~s; 'St~t. Ann.· §. 763(a), 'of certain final orders and deciSions lOf the ~ennsylvahi~ Department· of Correction~/ · .. · .· · · : · · · · · . · ; ' · 1

\ • ' : , ~, , , ' o ' , ' , • •' ', t ) ' • I I 1

' . t, , : • , • ' f '

:For. case law on this ·:remec;Iy, ·see, ~~g .. , Bro~n v. PA.' ·Dept. of Coif~ctl()ns;· 9..1~ 4.24 ,30((Pa. Gomm:W; ·Ct.' 20Q6) .<~. Department of Corr~ctioI1s ··decision l~~~C.erµing p1;uirges. of misconduct agains~ ari in~ate i~ beyond,tliis cori.tj;'Ef\.appell~te;()r origin.al.jurisdiction).

670

I

PENNSYLVANIA· .. i '

§ 41:68 Writ of erf'.or. coram liobi~No longer : . recogniz~~Enactment of·P~GRA··. ,: ·~··:· ..

§:~1:69

. ', -. ~ '. -~

! ? •

• J •

· ... Since 'the enactment of PCRA~ th~ !coriffiionia~ 'Writ of !error: co­ram no bis. has 'ceasea to be· an' avttilable postco'.nViCtion· remedy. fu Pennsylvania. Tlle PertnsylvartiaJ PCM. P.r~~ides~that a; PCM proceeding "shall be the sole means' of obtairiing collateral· relief

. and enQompasses all other common.law &nd statutory_ rem~die$ . :;. including ·habeas·corpus>an<f ~ora1* nb~is~" '42 Pa~tJons-~ Stat. Ann. § 9542. This statutory larigliage ha:srbeen· interpreted by the Pennsylvania courts ·to :mean. that the .P.CRA abolished the state's~ .common law posteonvictiQn. cQram. no bis. remedy.· .. Thus, common .Jaw coram nobis came to an .enci as· a: .Pennsylvania. :post~. conviction remedy in 1988. · · i . · · ·

§ 41:69 Writ of error:~orairi ~ri.obi&-:-No IOnger ....... . recognized-Enactment of P~RA.-Case ·1aw · '·

.· .. For b.ase .l~w ~on. the. ~~olitip~. oltii~ :~qr~: µ~~1s by. the; ·P,9RA, see,.e.g., Com. v. Descarde·s, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016).(we consider whether,"8.ppellee .Claude .. Descarde's w~s· entitied.:to seek reView of hi~ !:neft'~~tiveness .1of ~q~s~l ;Claifil, h~~ed .01:\ .'~o~~~i's failu:e to advis~ hiw .Qf the coll~t~~~ .~Qnsequenc~s of his; gvilty ple~, via a petition for writ of cor.ai~i'-llpbls;.we qonclud,e that .he was· ~ot; a claim

1 is . cogniz~ble . u~d~r _th~: PO.RA· i~ the petit~9iier pl~ads· and

proyes _by a prepqnd~ran'ce.t~()f. the eviqerice. $at:. (l)"he_.;lias been ~o~Vj~-~4 ·o~a cnw~. unde~· t~f l~~s .of ~hl.s -yo~on~eidth, (¥) he lS c~ervin:g a· serl~~ce. of ~m.pn~o~~nt, probat~o.n, . or parole for tJi~ ~tj~e,. bind ,_~3) hi~ ~.P~i;ivi.~

1

~~ori ·fes.~lted frolp. ·on~ ·or ~even· eriµmerated e~o~s· ~e~· f'ortlJ.., ~ii' 4~ .. Pa.-,-po*s. ·.Stat .. § 9543(a)(2), includ~n~~:~~~-ifec~ive.,~ss~~~a~c,~·o~ ~?uD:~e~r. the_ ~c~ ;provides the. exclusive ~~ip.edy-fpr po~~co11yictloJ:l. clauns seeki~g. · res.tora­tjoi:{ of appelfa~e ·rights dµ,e'to )~owi~e~'s failure to perfe~t.. a CJ#ect app~·~~ wh:ere ~ · ~laun .~s···cogmzabl~ l#ider1 t~~ PCRA, ·the }>CRA is the ·bnlf~method of ol:>taimng colla.teral reView); ·com. 'v~ 'Pagan, 2004 PA Stiper 483;:864 A.2d· 1281 C2004)' (corani~ nbbis'petition treated as PCRA petitfoii, . and· disttiissed; ~ if1 th({tinder~ying substantive claim is one .that: could 'Poteritiallybe remedied 'Wider the PCRA, that claiin ·is1axclusive tto the PCRA;. it·. is only where the. PCRA does not' encompass a r claim". that: other collateral procedures:are· available;· the petitioner's ·underlying substantive claim concerns. his. competency.to ~·either enter a!'.plea or stand trial· for his ·past offenses; .. the. claim,: .th~refore,. go_es Ukthe. ·very legality of his. convictions and is ·cle'arly encompassed· by. the PCRA; since: the· underlying .claim is. encompassed·, by ·the .PiCRA, · petitioner ~ay only obtain relief unde1\ the· PCRA;, in other words, coram no bis relief. does 1not .become ·available merely bee.a use the

671

§ 41:69 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

PCRA refuses to remedy a petitioner's grievance;-rather, we look at the claims a petitioner is raising;·. here,: because petitioner's claim coU;ld have b~~n .1Jrpugl\t. under the. PCRA, the claim had to be brought under the PC~; ih:e PCRA's fore~er, the PCHA, allowed for review . of claims. such as P.etitioner's uq.der coram npb~s~ hut the PCR:A does not). . : . _ · ·

§ 41:10 Postc~nvictio~ DNA testing stat~te · unde~ 42' Pa.· · Coi;is. Stat. §'9543.li ·

Pennsylvania has ·a .postconviction DNA testing statute, enacted.by the Act No. 2002-109·of July 10, 2002, and·codified at 42 Pa.· Cons. Stat~ Ann. § 9543~ 1, which is part of the Pennsylva­nia PCRA.

§ 9543.1. Postc~nviction DNA testing (a) M.otion.__; · .

(1) An individual convicted of a criminal offense in a court of this Commonwe~lth and serving a term of imprisonment or awaiting execution because of a sentence of death may ap­ply· by making a written motion to the ·sentencing court for the performance ·of forensic DNA testing on specific evidence that is related to· the'; investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment. of convi~tion. · ' · ·

' . · · (2) · The evidence m~y hav~ been discovered· either pripr to . , or after the applicant's convi~tiOD;~. The e'Vjdence shall }:>~

available for' testing as of th,e date:' of the ~otion. If.thee~­dence was discovered prior to. the applicant's convi~tion, the evidence shall not have ,been stibj~ct to ·the .. DNA testing requested because 'the technology' for testing was not in eXis­tence. at· the 'time o( the tri~ o.r the applicant:,s· 'counsel ~id no~ ~e~k testing ~t th~ time ,of: ti?.~. tnal, in a cas~ whe:r;~. a verdict was rendered.on or before.January .1, 19.95, or the ap­'plicant's .counsel soug~t funds. from the court to pay for . .the testing because. hi~ client was .indigent and· the court refused

· ' ,th~. requesJ;. if:espite t:~1e cliet;tt'~ ·.inq.igency. · · · ·(b) ~otice to the Commonwealth.~.- · .

(1). Upon receipt· of.a motion under subsection (a), tb.e court . ·. shall notify the· Commonwealth and shall afford. the Com­

.monwealth an opportunity to respond' to .the· motion.

672

(2) Upon receipt of a -motion under subsection (a) or notice of the motion, as applicable, the Commonwealth and' the court shall take the steps· reasonably necessary to ensure that any. remaining biological· material in the possession of the Commonwealth or the court is preserved pending the completion of the proceedings. under this section. · · ·

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:70

(c) Requirements._:_In. any motion· under subsection (a), under penalty of perjury,, the applicant shall: : !

(1) (i) specifytli~ ~vid_ence to be tested; .. (ii) state.t:hat'the applicant consents'to proVide s$ples

·of bodily fluid for use i;n the DNA testing; _and . (iii) ackhowl~dge, that· the applicant uxiderstands that, if

the· motibn·is granted,,-a·ny data ·obtained· from any DNA ,

1 sample's or test result's may be ·entered· into· law: enforce­ment databases, may be used in: the Investigation of other crimes and may'"be U:sed as evidence against: the··applicant in other cases. . . ... · (2) (i) assert the applicant's· actual inQ.o_cence of the of­fense for which the applicant was convfoted; and ·'

(ii) in' a capital case: (A) ,assert, th~ appJieint's ·act'ual irinocen~e of the

charged or uncharged' conduct coi;istituting an Eiggravat-ing ·circumstance under section :9711(d) (relating to sentencing procedure for murder of· the first degree) if the applicant's. exoneration of the contluct would result in vacating a· sentence· of death; or -

(B) ·assert tliat the outcome of the DNA testing would · establish a mitigating circumstance under· section 9711(e)(7) if tliat mitigating circumstance was presented to the sentencing judge or jury and facts as tO'that issue were in dispute at the ·sentencing hearing.

{3) present a prima facie case demonstrating that the: .. (i) identity p~ o:ri tJi~ pa~ticipatic)n iri' th~ c11me by the perpetrator was ·at issue in· the pro~eedings that res~lted in the applicant's conviction and sentencing;. and

(ii) : DNA testing of th:e specific evidence, assuming exculpatory results, would establish:

(A) the applicant's actual.' innocence -of~ the offense for which the applicant was convicted; ·

·· (B) in··a capital case, the applicant's- actual innocence of. the charged or uncharged conduct constituting· an ag­gravating circumstance under section .9711(d) .if the ap­

. plicant's exonerat~on of the conduct would result in . :vacating a. sentence of dea_th; or, ; · · ·, (C) in ·a:· capital case, a lnitigating circumstance under section 971l(e)(7) under the circumstances set forth in subsection (c)(l)(iv).

(d) Order~-( 1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the court shall or-

673

§ 41:'70 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF

, der,the testing reques.ted. in:-a motion ·under· subsection (a) under reasonable ~ conditiop.s designeq ·._to.: preserve .the integ­rity of the evidence and ~e. ~$tj.ng PliQ~~~ •. upop. a, determi-

, ··th!~on,_ ~r r~~e~ <>rt.h~.r.~.~Pf?..ci~~~~--,~fpli~~t's .. ~rial, that I l ~ I~ ... ! .: '\ :· f I • • • ·• ' I ~ ; : •· ~ • • :- i ' . : , ·.: i ! ' '' ;( • •

. .. . .. : _Ji) "re;q.~e.m~nFs o(su~~ec~~o~ {~) ~?:~Y~: p~en ·~et; . } , . (ii). eyiq~nce w. be ~~te~ h;as bee~ subje,ct to B:. chain of . , , ~ . cust9~y1 sµft!cient to est~blisJi: t.:li~t it:h~s not· be~n ,altered

, ... ·Jn.~Q.y,m~~al respect; ~d·.,; : .: -"., .

. (iii)'. motion is· made~ in. a: timely i;nanner and for the purpose of demonstrating the applicant's ·actual innocence

. ·.aJld .. ~ot.to·.de.lflyt;he e?Cecµtia~ of ~~ntence.or ~dministra-tionj qf;ju~ti<;e . .- . . . . .: .. : : : .· . . . (2) The court shall not order .the. ~e.sti~g ~equested in a

motion under sube.ection (a) if, after review of the record of the. applicant's ~'t:cial, the' court. determines. that there is no

.. r~~s~nabW w~sibility .tb.~t th~ t~sting .wouid .produce. exculpa--1 . : tq;f :~vide~c~; ~hat:. . . " .. . . . ; · . : . l • . . ,_. . , , · ·. ·

,·, :·; '(i) .would::establish the applicant's actual innocence of the offense for which the ·appUcant:wa~ convicted; .. ~£(ji), in B: ~apital case, _would establi$.h the: applicant's

. ,actual, inno~e.nce. of the c}large.d 1Pr: u~cha~ged'. conduct , .. , · ~QQstituting, ~,aggravating; circ,u~$tance unde;r section

.9711(d) if th~ .applicai;tt'~ .ex011eration of the cq~duct would result in vacat~ng a $~ntence of qeath; \or. . ...

· (~~n in Jt·c.~pit~l ca$~, would ~stablish- a ,piitigating circumstance under section 9711(e)(7) under the circum­

·'· ~ '.' st'anc~s set forth in subsection•(c)(l)(i\7)~ : : . 1 - ~ '. ' : ' . . l . . . l • • . ' • ~ ) • : \,. : • , • ;

·· · · (e) Testing .p~qced~~s.7- ~: l .• ·

~. (1) .Any .DNA testiµg ord~red .up,der this ·sectiqn shall be conducted by: ~· · .. ,

. 1(i) :ailaboratory mutuallyfselected by the Commonwealth and the applicant;.1 o'. ' ' ':, :r • ' ' •.:"· ..

.. , . . (ii) if the Commo~wealth. and the. applicant are unable _ .; .. to·agree.on a.labaratory;·a laboratory $.elected:by .the court

. • . , . · that ordered ~theA~esting; or . ·

674

1 .· (iii) -if'the applica~t is· indig~n:t; the testirig1 shall be conducted by the Pennsylvania "State-· Police· :-or, at the P~nnsylvania State Polic~.'s sol~ dis,cretioil,.; .by:p. laboratory

:·. designate.d py.the P~nnsylvania State: Police .. ; (2) The costs of any testing ordered under~this section

shall be paid: (i) by the applicant; or ;' ...

PENNSYLVANik , § 41:7~

.: (ii) .in the.case~of.an appli~~nt who is in~igent,. by, the .Qommonwealth ot:~Pennsylvama., ·. · ,· : '. ;·. . . .(3}. Testing conducted byLthe: Pennsylvani~ State Police

~ shall. be carried out' in accordance with the protocols and procedures :established by the ·Pennsylvania State .Police., .

· : · (f), · Posttesting· procedureEH..:....; · · 1 · . · 1., . · · . , .

· ·, · · (1) Mer 'the DNA.testing: conducted under this section has · been coµipleted~ -tn~;1ap~licant· may, pursuant t<>- section

9545(b)(2) (relating tO jurisdiction and' proceedings)~· dliririg · -the 60-day period b~ginmng·oni.the date'on· wbichrthe·ap~

plicant is notified of the;test .results;: petition· to. the court. for posteonviction relief phrsuant .t(): section· 9543(a)(2)(vi) (relat.. ing to eligiliility for.relief.). · · ··. ·.. ·'.' ·: '·' · · · · ·

· ' · · (2) Upon receipt· of r.a ·petition filed . under. paragi'aph', (ll, the·court shall consider the petition :a.long With: anfans'o/~r

I filed by the Conimonw~'alth. ·and shall ctiriduct ·a>h'earh1g thereon. · · · · : .... : ·· : ··: " ' · · ': " ..J : '' • •

. (3) 'In any hearing 'oii. a ·petitioii fot post·convictioh}elief . · . .' . fil~~- uridef par~~~~~· q),1 .~~e· ~6~ .~h~l 1~~terp;rlri~ '~h~t~er

• : 1 tl~e ex~ulpatory.-ev~d~n9~. ~e.~ul~1ngJrqm ·fhe DN~. ~~s,tu~g . , conducted under this ·section wotild h.ave changed the

· . · · (: .<>u~co~e -~f ,the'. t#al 'as '!e~~lp.red. ~y' ~~~~foh _.~5~acaYC2)(V!l~: · · .: · . c , ·.~~. Eff~c~ of Pz1:pti0n.~!h~!·~g· of a µiotjo~ ~o~.~o~ep.~iC·-Dj~A. . ~esti~g pursuant to s~bs~.ctio~ (a), shall have the .followmg .. f!~ire~~~· ' 1'_ . '' I•"••!. ''.' •: • • \, ·,~j,1'\ '• ' '.:~I:. : ·: •'

.' · , (1) The filjng; oft~~ ·motion ~halLconsti~ute the apP,Jican~'s ·· · consent .to ,provid~ samples, of bodil~rfl.ui.d fo.r-use· in the . .ONA

. ;. testing. . , .: . . . . , ·1 · . (2) The ·dat~ from any DNA· s·a:mples or.test~resuilts

obtained ·as 'a result of,the motion may be.enterechmtoJaw enforcement· databases··/may l be :used; in tP,e · investigation1 :of other crimes and. may_; lie -used~ as-. evidenc'e, against· the ap~ plicant iri other cases. . f,; · -~:~' .. · · ·'. ':·. · · · '. J. •

-· -; (h) Definitioiis.-As used 1fu (thisr section~ the .following words and· phrases shall· bave·:tlietnieanings~ give·n 1 ito: them in> this

" ·subsection: i i ; \. J. · • :1~ .. : : : ~ ;: · .. ; 1 . =. ·

· "Applicant." :Tli~ .#1div1dual'\~ho files a· rliotion ~u:µ<¥er ··· subsection(a).·" ; :· · ,,:·':: ·: r'n· :.· ·.,, •:; ,;_:. >·'1·

-~P~A." Pio~boD;ti6~eiG·}~cl~. : ... -:~. . ,!,' ~- .·. •. ,) .· .i·

~§ .4~.:71 :·.P~stcon~~~~o~·J)~~,t~,stjnJJ st~t~te ,?,a~r .. 4~ Pa. . . Cons. Staf~ § 9543.l~Case law · . ·

. For: case 'iaw.;:on ·P~~n~yl~~i~~s 'P.ostconvictiQn :DNA testing

675

§ 41:71 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

statute, see~' ·e.g., Com .. v. Wctls~., 2015.PA S:uper 222, 125 A.3d 1248 (2015) .(death sentence case; the PCRA's one-year time bar does not apply to .motions for .the performance. :of forensic DNA testing· under .42 Pa. Cons.. Stat. Ann. § 9543.1; importantly, however; § 9543.1 cannot ·be 1used to raise extraneous issues not related to DNA testing in an effort .to avoid. the one-year. PCRA time bar; a petitioner wl:io is unable to obtain D;N'A. testing under ~ect~on 954;i.1 can-still pursue.~ ·ineffective• assistance of counsel claim based 1on failu:re .to. request, DNA testing of evi_dence at. trial, but only if PCRA petition is timely filed. or otherwise meets statutory excep.tion ~o timeliness requirement; § 9543. l(d) requires -.the petitioner to make a timely request for DNA .testing; in analyzing timeliness the court must consider the facts of each case, .to determine whether t~e applic~t's request for postconvic­tio~ ·DNA .testing ~s to denion~trate his ·actual innocence or to delay .~~e execution of sentence or .administration of justice; here, our own review of the record and circumstances surrounding the ~pp~llant~s postconviction DNA. t~sting r~quest leads to the coilclusiOn that this motfon was untimely as a matter of law and was. forWarded only to delay further the execution of the sentence;

. Appellant has also failed to prese~t a prinia 'faci~ case demon­strating his actmd innocence);· Com~ v. Scp,rborough, 619 Pa. 353,

. 64 A.3d 602. {2013) (~raer grantin~ ~efendant's ·mqtiqn_ for post­convictjoh forensic DNA testing· p~suant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act was a final order from which an iD.imediate appeal to the Superior Court could be taken; trial court's order granting the requested·relief disposed of all claims· and the entire postcon­viction case); Corri~ v. ·Edmiston, 619 ·Pa: 549,' 65 A.3d 339 (2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 639, 187 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2013) (there is no prohibition in Section 9543.l which would preclude ·a convicted individual who has confessed to ;a crinie, and who otherwise meets all of the statutory requirements, from ~obtaining DNA testing, merely because of the· existence of the· confession; capital murder defendant's motion for DNA testing under the Postconviction DNA Testing Act was untim.ely, :·S:Qd made only t9 delay further the execution of . .defend~nt's d~ath sentence; evidence against defendant at trial was strong, defendant deliberately sought at that tim~. nqt. to see~ further scientific te~ting, and his counsel made apparent decision not fo seek DNA. testing throughout the lengthy postconviction proceeding~); Com. v. Wright, 699 Pa. 22, 14 A.3d 798, 72 A.L.R.6th 673. (2011) (a confessiOn, even if previ­ously and finally adjudicated as voluntary, does not constitute a per .se bar to establishing a prima facie cas~ d~monstrating. that DNA testing would establish actu~ inri<icen~e", and the. convicted person may, therefore, obtain postconviction DNA testing if he or she meets all of the pertinent requirements for such testing;

676

PENNSYLVANIA ~ 41:71

overruling Qom. v. Young, 2005 PA Super.142, 873:A.2d 720 (2005)); .Young v~ Philadelphia County Dist. Attorney's Office, 2009 WL 278968· (E.D. Pa. 2009), judgment aft'd, 341 Fed. Appx. 843 (3d. Cir. 2009) (pursuant to that statute, a movant is entitled to DNA ·testing on evidence used to· convict him .where the movant: .(1) asserts! that he is actually innocent:of the offense for which he was·convicted; and (2) presents a prima facle case dem­onstrating that the identity of the perpetrator: was an issue at trial and that DNA testing; ·assuming exculpatory results, would establish actual. innocence; the Superior Court concluded that Youn~s identity was an issue; at trial; however, the court found that Young failed to establish ·a. prima facie case under. the stat .. ute· because ·''his confession to thf:r murder-bars him from· assert­ing· a claim of actual innocence ·for 'the offense for which he-was convicted;" an appellant cannot'assert a claim·of actual innocence where the validity ofthe confession'has·been finally litigated, found not to be coerced,·and was knowingly and voluntarily·given; furthermore, Young could not 1show'actual innocence because the victim's son, ·unequivocally identified· Young at trial as· the perpetrator);· €om. v. Williams, 1 2006 PA Super 279, 909 A.2d 383 (2006) (a motion for DNA testing,. 'while clearly separate and distinct· from claims pursuant·to· other sections of the PCRA, nonetheless constitutes a postconviction petition under the PCRA; here, defendant failed to establish prima. facie requirements for postconviction DNA testing; identity of perpetrator was not at is­sue because defendant admitted that he· had sexual intercourse with vi·ctim); Com .. v. Smith, ~2005-PA Super 405,: 889 A.2d 582 (2005) (under a recently ·enacted provision of the PCRA, an inmate may seek forensic DNA testing of specific evidence that is related to the investigation or prosecution: that resulted· in his conviction; there are,. however, several· statutory -requirements that a petitioner seeking postconviction DNA testing must meet; most ·relevant to the case at bar, the petitioner must present a priiiia facie case that the requeste·d DNA testing,. assuming that · it yields exculpatory results, would establish his actual innocence of the crime of which he was convicted; if,: after reViewing the rec­ord of petitioner's trial, the' court determines that there is no rea­sonable possibility that the DNAtesting would 0produce exculpa­tory evidence that would establish. the ·petitioner's actual innocence, the court shall not order the testing; ·the· :petitfoner1is required to present a prima· facie case that the requested DNA testing, assuming it gives exculpatory results, would establish the petitioner's actual innocence of the crime;.under this postcon­viction DNA testing.statute, the court is directed not to order the testing if it determines, after review· of the trial record, that• there is no reasonable possibility that· the testing would produce

677

§"41:'71 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND ··.REDIEF

exculpatory evidence to e·stablish·,pet~tioner's actual innocence; froin the·clear words an<I: plain meaning of.these provisions, there can· be .no· mistake that tlie l:rurde1:f.lies with. the~petitionei: to make a prim.a facie case that favorable results from the requested DNA testing,would establish .. his·innoceiice; here,. __ the petitianer; convicted.of murder, sought DNA testing oftae.Yictim's·fingernail clippings ·.and of any: biological material.present on: a liquor bottle and· its sales rec~ipt that were 'found,.iclose :to ,the victim's. body; the· eonvicting court. dismissed the. petition; .we: agr.ee with ,the convicting ;court that- the :petitioner.a unsupported assertion :that absence of his :DNA from: victim's, fingernails :would establish bis innocence was insufficient to ·entitle him:-to .postconviction· DNA testing); Com. v. Brooks, 2005·PA:Super 185, :875 A.2d 1141 (2005) (this state's postconviction DNA. testing. statute ·took effect· in September. 2002; the· HCRA's. one~year time ·bar ·rl;oes not apply. to motions· for· the :performanc.e ... of- forensic :DNA· testing ,under the post~onviction:DNA tes~ing statute; ;rather, after .DNA testing has been completed, the applicant~may,; within t60 ·days ·of receiv..:. ing the test results, petition to: the court for postcoilviction relief on .the. basis of after-discovered·.evidence,. ·an exception to the qne­year statute of 1limitations; here, ,therefore, petitioners :petitions for DNA testing ·are. not barred ·by the PCRA's one-year statute'. of limitations; we ·agree ,with the. trial ~cour,t that. petitioner has .. nQt presented.a·prima·facie· o.ase .. by demonstrating that the DNA testing of speclfic .. ~eviden~e, : assuming. exculpatory results,· would establish his, actual innocence; nowhere does: .tq.e, postconviction DNA testing statute· confer upon1·a~petitioner '.the right to counsel; petitioner. cannot. use the . postconvictioli DNA testing. statute 'to raise extraneous issues· not_.,related· to DNA testing in· an. effort. to avoid. the one-year time· bar on filing· PCRA petition.S; ~nowhere does· this state's postconviction DNA· testing statute .confer upon a petitioner the 1right to. '.counsel); Com. v, Heilman, 2005 PA Super .iJ.._9, 867 A.2d .. 542 (2005) .(this is· only the fourth case in which .this· court has ·been asked to consider. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann ... §.95.43.1; ·on· its face, the~prima facie"requir.ement set·forth in§ 954~.l(c)(3):. andrreinforced. in § .9543.l(d)(2) requires an: ap­pellant to:demonstrate. that· favorablei results of,the requested DI'fA testing.~:would·.estaplish" tha appellant's actual innocenc.e.~f. the crime of conviction;.Heilman .. has failed to. m.ake. such,'a dem~ onstr.ation,. .nor1 coµld .. he; in1 DNA as in other a.reas, .. an absence. of evidence is1;not .evidence of abs-ence; ·further.mere, a _murder s;u.spect may· be convicted: on. wholly circumstantial evidence~ .. of which there. was pl~nty. in. this case); Williams. v ... Erie County Dist.: Attorney's Office, 2004 ]~A Super 127, -848. A.2d 967 (2004) (defendant, who.· pleaded~ guilty,. filed a' petition ·for D:NA testing in court below; ~he: postconvic.tion DNA testing statute, 42 Pa.

678

I

PENNSYLVANIA § 41:72

Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543.1, took effect on Sept. 8, 2002; we begin by acknowledging that Williams's petition, in effect, constitutes a request for postconviction relief; we evaluate any postconviction petition under the PCRA, regardless of the title of the document filed; first, we must deterlnine whether the trial court had juris­diction to review Williams's petition, which was filed nearly seven years after his conviction became final; the PCRA provides that any PCRA petition shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, barring some indication on the petition that one of several exceptions applies; circumstances excusing untimeliness are: (1) government interference preventing the petitioner from raising the issue at an earlier time; (2) the emer­gence of after-discovered evidence, or the development by the U.S. Supreme Court or .the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of a new and pertinent constitutional right and a holding· that said right shall apply retroactively; our review of the record discloses no clear basis on which to ~gue that any of these exceptions ap­plies to excuse the drastic untimeliness of Williams's petition; moreover, Williams fails to provide authority or evidence sug­gesting that any exception applies; this defect does not end our discussion, however, because Williams argues that he is entitled to physical evidence for purposes of DNA testing, which may require the application of timeliness rules that differ from those generally applicable under the PCRA; this argument brings us into the realm of after-discovered evidence; postconviction DNA testing statute does not directly create an exception to the one­year time bar of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545; rather, it allows

. for a convicted individual to first obtain DNA testing which could then be used within a PCRA petition to establish new facts in or­der to satisfy the requirements of an exception under§ 9545(b)(2), relating to after-discovered evidence; we find that the language of § 9543.1 clearly precludes that section's application to petitioners seeking to challenge convictions resulting in guilty pleas by refer­ence to DNA evidence; even had Williams demonstrated grounds for DNA testing, his petition would be subject to the one-year time bar). ·

§ 41:72 Erroneous Convictions Act

Pennsylvania does not have an erroneous convictions act.

679

:

,. .. [··-,;·, .. , ._ .. \,.:: ·:f-!n,~.~ ·.:..·: ·j··, ";; .. ·::: :;·.:.~--~~;c .Jou:; ~J-.:-_;~a~::.;·~, i·.r:...!\ .JJ.:Jr~.· .P!f1/.--.~

;~ ;;,~,~~rJjJ:;::::_''") ... i ,-;,~1£ ... ·;;·;··'..'.: ;:.:~:_;~\~ :::~:-w:J·i'.~~·ti'- .. ~• ... :~t.;: l 'ii -.:~·->: 1 1·.:\l•~·.:_·:,~ :u-~ !i.C : .. ,· :~ :_!ti~i.'~J~-" ··:2 ·~.;. ;1.:; ~_ . .e f,HLC', J ~=i~i. :·;:E·~i_t .. J·;· :1u1:"Jii·>:; Ji(· ~.j.~_;)l: --ro'f -}~~:.:.~; :. :: .. ;"J

ir::3i :; :.; .,{·,.:· .. · ~.d: ·1·:.i ;·:_~;. .. ~ :.·Jr·: .·j ;~:::~ Lh·1:1p'>; . !-.~.: >i· •,;Lr ·bf·H" :· · ·: ;_; ;. ;.i. :: i·;.:;; L · :: i ;(1 P<:·!~ .l •::i· .. ; ._, :! ~ ';:->;l,1 J ·,'/ £~n i_;Ji'f!·rY L i -:~ i.:;, i" \~i· · .. :t ·~ '. ;'"; ! : -

.:·!~~ -~-~i;~ ~.~;·-.~--:-·-»r: ~.~:::.If.~~,:~·,, .... ·:·~·!:.;l·~~.-. 1 t.~~ .. :-~~hi~)tr--b~-~~' .. fl~:.fill·:_·.· ,-.,_1-:,~l·~~:)·~ i·.· i!•fJ: .. ~{·_, ,'f.fH-:J c:f:~:~f'/f.i't') / ;.1···:·.:..~ ,'1,.i ;:;_;:~:: :::~.'.1i:.)~~t.f :)rj_~hJ1J..i:)~ :-.t. · ,:ct . ._:.~ ~.;'.i.'.'.·'' :';;Jt t..t.1.::.L< '.ht·i }_. '•;_ .. i· ·~ti·~, :·?ill";'.~; :)·:·ff? iJti .:.h~1f::-.:.i,,;:~;1; _·:;·<}'·f·\-:.'; ~i1,.I~ jf f Y.; ; • 1.i :i .. u: F.·)l ::·_~·: ',i :·u.;.r; :-.: fr;;_}_:?. 2.:-_; :·.~-·:·6.-i Jr; r: f~ :j:. i ... ,. :': : : '~ ;'. l; I .. i _, i' 1,

: .. : .' ~c· I! t~;~ ~~ ;_·~ .1:).r.• ~-~ . .: .. ~-;.hJ:·:'·~ :~; ·;-,.:Ji_!'c~ .. ~.:r ~.i ~;rH_; ~::-~;t~_,,~.r.·~ 1 ,~,~-:·_:. ;.~· '::,~· ,, .:-~: .. "~·;-£J !-!J

·: .! i, ~ ;.: { '· ~--~ • C· v ,·•·(q , :>-' ..:-, .. · ;·1:-1;·~~·.l ni :L:: '·>; r: -.Tt(!?~Tg !.)_ ·; : T: .~:. · -, : .'. iJ : .:~! ... ,: ~ 1 .. :. ;

- ~sn-; ~·1 • °)_f.i · . t_ ~:.· ; ;.J!\..:~ :i .· '.:li· ~ ·:f'-<: m.' ;; .c• D!J :::;..L_ ptfl ·:!: .n rr; ·' "; r~10-f.r ; .. : u~; ~.· • 0i •• i

.~ r ~1,' ~'. 1 ' '.','. ~ ~ f ~;~~·:: ·:, ~ :i ~ ·:::L'r ;; : ~,! y: ~ h ;~;,'.~ '~;:1,;' '; ;~' ·;.;', : . : ~ ... ; ' :; ; ~, t[ i. ; ; >; '.:·r .

~~~;~;,·;,'i'l'. i:!_,(f ::i:.·;~;f 3~;~;,i(;~Jf :;,~;:r~1;:~0·:,·;~;;£r;''.'.~:·;c 1·:' +'· .. :{1:? ~ . : ;~ ~r :~ : :·, ::'.: ,.,~':; .•• t'.: ; ':,~}; :i"; /'.~;::; ; (;(~ .~:i::t (•~; :. ! '.'.:,;?, ·; • 1 ;, •• ' i< ~ r .; .. :; ,: : ; ~ i: ! .. ~, r~-, } ~-;n~ ·; •~~: ~ ~-~~:; .. ;_b ,1~-~j·r{; f / ·?. f ~ ;,:; .~ i~~.:·~ ~ l~Jt} fi 1-;. C· f ·~ ~· i -;· ~·:<£-~ ~'<·~ i.1 ,~ r: rJ ~ ~~~,..I·;.~~;.~:

r;,::1;; •;: ;~ i. 1 ;";', i, . '~j'ir',, %'' '.J'.; ', {' 3:; tr ;:i.:;~'., ':~;~n ; . ;~· :-;: : .c. '.: : , . ; ; '.. ,, ~ ~, ; . ,.:.; ~~;:;:\tL :f~:· 1t' ",:~~:'\ch .ti<fa _ . .-~!;;·~. '.:.'=,-:1~~~,:..iti>J<_.· ~<i~t;~',-~r(irr:·: ;.j.j ::·'.:·=;u:,1

;_> . ·-:·::::.:;Ci ·11;s·nu-'a"' ;:: <) :!'.:· ~.f=Y:_)c~ 0rLt ';i .:•!)i; :! . 5.f ,:\ ..... , (. :c; :: - ' · ~.·~;. t~:Y~·: · tlf-""i .. ~ _.:~--..t_~· .. t··.;r1;; )·~:-~,:"~··:.· ::::~~~.t:·::_bf\:-t.: bs·J.s' .. -·c:..-3!t:-"-~·-};rJ.f~ ·.\.' u: !g~;! ~ .. ..:~~~~: ~_---:i:~.:..~ ··.~.f't) t~·rl~! ;,.; .f•r.}i-~tq··.·_1!\~~·!~~· .n~-~- s}~~:·:<r6~ ""tf.1!::!j'_~:lb ~:;{~ ·.~E.·qb !:J.t·.1.i:" .. L ~.'..:~ ·.~· ~.'~ .s.·'•Ji!J:; ); :--P.1(a.i~. :r:1.<~ 1:: ~ ··,:/s...l-. _.f.;;i2 .. ;::;.-.;.~1r.• ·f..Yt :~r:-: ·1c ·u:·. ~-~.-, ... : -~i;·:w.· ~1r1·\.".· :.~:,frL_,..5,..-t;j.~:e1 .-\!<1:C~ J·i.~~afh:J:::orrr-:-1 'r::.;f._,i~;i·Fc~ :'r.."1.-;_-.,fr .. :'\·;_, :10}

····:0 !i.\ ~:.l:J.'."t ~:.-.·:-.nr:.~ifr!fo~~~:i :;f-;~oiHJ~?·g ~:· .. Jr)·~-~~ 1~;:i.{{·r; L·~·:.,1 -J;: ,,,:ri:~

t'. '.<':~:~; .~; '. ~';'. ( ~; ;'.;,~: ' '..i :t; /A"'.~::~;'.;, ;,:!,'.!ii-~ C.'. ';~ '.~ .:~:i~~~ i ~·• 1~.r(;' ' '. ~·. ~·! .' i.; . ·.· i ;,j. r • ·::~":.1~i''.1i.L: ')'l ~}~ "r:·:·;·'.:_; .-· *t~-: ._: ".-::·.1to:J·y;;a~'t.ei.L! .:_.?; .. ;,iJ.'1fi·:.:r 1(h:r;::·~~; i . . :: .. i_.r~·:~ f:

~;;I::~·~~:~;;'; :)~~::,:1'.+·(:~:'.~ ·;'~::~~;; m:·~'.:'~;~;i:·;~;': ::;.·~· :~:'.\;:c;: ·.'.~·,: F ·•· ''.:· :,· 1,~: :~ ·;~:!l ~~11~ .. ,:

"'.. ..

. I

..1