Opinion

Commonwealth v. Seskey

  • 2014 Pa. Super. 27
  • 86 A.3d 237
  • 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 42
  • 2014 WL 631244
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 19, 2014
Status
Published
Author
Strassburger
On the bench
Allen, Strassburger, Wecht
Cited by
156 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.7%

stating that “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality of sentence claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised ... in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim.” (brackets omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • stating that “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality of sentence claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised ... in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim.” (brackets omitted)
  • stating that the appellant did not address how his Miller claim “should be considered under the habeas corpus statute instead of under the PCRA[,] a concern that Chief Justice Castille did not resolve definitively[.]”
  • explaining “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality [of sentence] claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised for the first time in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim[]”
  • stating, “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality [of sentence] claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised … in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim[]”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

CONCURRING OPINION BY

STRASSBURGER, J:

I agree that the PCRA court’s May 1, 2012 order should be affirmed. I join the Majority’s analysis of all of Appellant’s issues with the exception of issue IV regarding Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus relief.

“[A] defendant cannot escape the PCRA time-bar by titling his petition or motion as a writ of habeas corpus.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa.Super.2013). “Issues that are cognizable under the PCRA must be raised in a timely PCRA petition and cannot be raised in a habeas corpus petition.” Id. Because Appellant’s claims may be addressed under the PCRA, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)© (providing that PCRA relief is available for convictions resulting from constitutional violations), the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s habeas corpus petition as an untimely PCRA petition.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.