Com. v. Wilson, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S30006-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JERRY EUGENE WILSON, Appellant No. 1873 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 3, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-MD-0001703-1984 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E. MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 3, 2013 order denying as untimely his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. On appeal, Appellant contends that the United States Supreme Court created a new constitutional right in Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012) plea bargaining process), and, therefore, his PCRA petition is timely under the exception set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). 1 After careful review, we affirm. ____________________________________________ 1 That section states: (b) Time for filing petition.-- (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S30006-14 We have examined the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, namely Lafler Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that Feliciano could not rely on Lafler (or its companion case of Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012)), to satisfy the timeliness exception of section Frye nor Lafler created a new - reasoned opinion of the Honorable Scott Arthur Evans of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. We conclu accurately disposes of the issue presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we petition on that basis.2 (Footnote Continued) _______________________ (1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). 2 While Appellant acknowledges our decision in Feliciano, he nevertheless asks this Court to revisit the question of whether Lafler created a new constitutional right. In support, Appellant argues that certain language in Feliciano effectively raise[] the issue or (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-S30006-14 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 (Footnote Continued) _______________________ completely argue[] whether or not Lafler Brief at 11 (citing Feliciano, 69 A.3d at 1276 (noting that the pro se petitioner did not raise below the precise assertion that he satisfied the timeliness exception of section 9545(b)(1)(iii) based on Frye and Lafler)). However, the language in Feliciano cited by Appellant refers to whether Feliciano preserved this claim before the PCRA court, not whether he sufficiently argued it on appeal. Moreover, we ultimately concluded that Feliciano had preserved his claim below, relying on the fact that the PCRA pro se filings as asserting the applicability of the exception set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(iii). Feliciano, Lafler and Frye they did not. Id. at 1276-1277. Because Feliciano is binding precedent, we cannot accept Appella -examine this issue herein. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
