# Commonwealth v. Seskey

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 19, 2014 · 2014 Pa. Super. 27

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968541

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Regis SESKEY
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 19, 2014
- **Citations:** 2014 Pa. Super. 27; 86 A.3d 237; 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 42; 2014 WL 631244
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Strassburger
- **Judges:** Allen, Strassburger, Wecht
- **Cited by:** 156 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968541

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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[]”
- holding that it could not consider the substance of the appellant’s claims under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution given the language of subsection 9545(b)(1)(iii) and Cunningham

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968541. Public record. Not legal advice.