Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 10/11/20 Zak Goldstein 10/11/20

PA Supreme Court Eliminates Public Record Presumption for Newly-Discovered Evidence PCRAs

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Small, eliminating the “public records presumption” with respect to Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) litigation. The public-records presumption often allowed courts to dismiss PCRA Petitions based on newly-discovered evidence on the theory that a petitioner should have found out about potential evidence contained in records which were theoretically publicly available at an earlier date, thereby rendering petitions untimely. PCRA Petitions based on newly-discovered evidence generally must be filed within one year of the date on which the Petitioner learned of the new evidence. Of course, inmates don’t really have access to public records, and even when they have lawyers, their lawyers may not be aware of certain new evidence or facts. Therefore, the presumption unfairly resulted in the dismissal of countless petitions.

Commonwealth v. Small

The defendant and his co-defendant committed an armed robbery of a drug dealer in the co-defendant’s home in 1981. During the incident, the defendant stabbed the drug dealer and the decedent. The decedent died from his wounds. The defendant and his co-defendant were tried together in 1983. At their trial, the drug dealer testified and identified the defendant and his co-defendant as the assailants. The drug dealer also testified that the defendant stabbed him during the robbery, while the co-defendant was armed with a shotgun. During the struggle, the drug dealer was able to escape through a kitchen window.

The co-defendant testified in his own defense and provided a different account of the events. He admitted that he and the defendant intended to rob the drug dealer and the decedent. However, he denied wielding a shotgun. He testified that he and the defendant entered the apartment and ordered the decedent and the drug dealer on the floor. While tying up the drug dealer, he jumped up and struck the co-defendant. The defendant then came to the co-defendant’s aid and hit the drug dealer three times “with what sounded like punches.” The defendant then “punched” the decedent who cried out that he had been stabbed. The co-defendant stated that he left the apartment in a panic, but then they realized he had left his hat behind. The two men then went back to the apartment. They entered the apartment by breaking a kitchen window whereupon the co-defendant retrieved his hat and the defendant carried off a television set.

The defendant also testified in his own defense. He denied any participation in the crimes. He even denied making an incriminating statement that he had given to detectives which stated that he served as a lookout outside of the apartment. The defendant stated that the detectives approached him in the interrogation room with a statement already prepared and instructed him to sign it, but he refused to do so. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found both the defendant and the co-defendant guilty of second-degree murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and criminal conspiracy. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. His sentence was later affirmed by the Superior Court.

The PCRA Petition

Over the course of several decades, the defendant made several attempts to obtain relief under the PCRA. His first three PCRA petitions were denied and their dismissals were affirmed on appeal. The instant case has to do with his fourth PCRA petition which was filed in 2014. In this petition, the defendant alleged that the co-defendant testified during his own post-conviction proceedings in a manner that was substantially different than from his trial testimony. The defendant testified that he learned this in 2013 while conducting legal research in the prison library. Due to what the PCRA court characterized as “some administrative and inexplicable error,” the defendant’s petition was neither assigned to nor received by the PCRA court until April 2017.

The PCRA court issued a notice of its intent to dismiss this PCRA petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The defendant responded to the notice, contending that his averments satisfied the newly discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar. The PCRA court reconsidered its intent to dismiss the defendant’s petition. The PCRA court stated that the defendant obtained this “newly discovered” evidence based on his reading of a 1998 Superior Court decision that affirmed the denial of the co-defendant’s PCRA petition. In that opinion, the court cites the co-defendant’s testimony from his evidentiary hearing. It stated that the co-defendant testified that the defendant killed the decedent for personal reasons, specifically because his wife had an affair with him.

This was obviously different than what the co-defendant testified to at their trial. Based on this representation, the PCRA court appointed the defendant an attorney to represent him. His attorney was then able to obtain transcripts from evidentiary hearings conducted from the co-defendant’s PCRA proceedings. Consequently, the defendant then filed an amended petition citing these transcripts and alleging that he was entitled to a new trial in light of the after-discovered evidence prong of the PCRA statute. It should be noted that both the Commonwealth and the defendant stipulated that these transcripts constituted “public records.”

In making its decision, the PCRA court gave significant weight to the evidence revealed in the 1993 transcripts. The court found the transcripts relevant because the co-defendant gave another version of events that was different than what he said at their trial. Based on these discrepancies, the PCRA court concluded that this amounted to newly discovered evidence and he was entitled to a new trial. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior reversed the PCRA court. Specifically, the Superior Court found that because these transcripts from the 1993 hearing were a matter of public record and therefore could not be considered “unknown” to the defendant. Further, the Superior Court found that the co-defendant’s testimony from the 1993 hearing was not significantly different than his trial testimony. Consequently, the defendant was not entitled to PCRA relief. The defendant then filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court eliminated the public record presumption of the PCRA. The Court analyzed the plain language of the newly discovered evidence prong of the PCRA and found that it only has two elements: “that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner,” and that those facts “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Further, the Court stated that “[t]his language plainly calls for a circumstance-dependent analysis of the petitioner’s knowledge, not that of the public at large.” In other words, the language of the newly discovered evidence prong of the PCRA has no requirement that the evidence be of public record and that this presumption was a judicially crafted presumption that was inconsistent with the plain language of the statute.

Unfortunately for the defendant, the elimination of the public records presumption did not mean that he would get a new trial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Superior Court’s finding that the co-defendant’s testimony from his 1993 hearing was not significantly different than what he testified to at their trial. The Court acknowledged that there were inconsistencies and omissions between what he testified to in 1993 and what he testified to at trial. Nonetheless, the co-defendant’s testimonies were consistent enough and therefore held that the defendant is not entitled to a new trial. As such, he will be forced to serve the remainder of his sentence. However, this opinion will help many petitioners going forward as they will be able to get into court by filing a PCRA even if the new evidence appeared in public records to which they do not have access outside of the one year window for filing a newly-discovered evidence petition.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 10/7/20 Zak Goldstein 10/7/20

PA Bench Warrants | Get A Bench Warrant Lifted

Bench warrants don't go away on their own. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers can help get a bench warrant lifted.

Bench Warrants in Pennsylvania

If you have missed court as a complainant or a defendant, you may have a bench warrant. Bench warrants can be a serious problem because they can lead to the revocation and forfeiture of bail or a contempt citation and potential jail time. If you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest and would like assistance in turning yourself in and avoiding jail time as punishment for the warrant, our Philadelphia, PA criminal defense lawyers can help. Call or text 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today. Although we provide general information about bench warrants here, we can help give you more specific advice on how to handle your individual case for the best possible results.

What will happen if I don’t go to court?

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Criminal Defense Lawyer for Lifting a Bench Warrant in PA

If you were subpoenaed for court as a defendant and miss your court date without letting the court know, you will almost certainly receive a bench warrant. You could also be held in contempt and have your bail revoked when you are eventually arrested on the warrant. The same could be true for a witness in a case. The Commonwealth does not always seek to arrest its witnesses when the witnesses fail to appear, but in some cases, the Commonwealth could obtain a material witness warrant for you if you were subpoenaed for court to testify as a witness and failed to appear.

What is a bench warrant?

A bench warrant is an order issued by the judge directing any law enforcement officers with whom you come into contact to arrest you. This means that if you do not get the warrant taken care of and you get stopped by the police, the police will likely arrest you if they run your name and find out that you have a warrant. If you have an outstanding warrant, you could also run into problems when attempting to travel in and out of the country or by airplane.

Are there any other punishments for missing court?

Demetra Mehta, Esq - Philadelphia Bench Warrant Lawyer

Eventually, you will likely get arrested or decide to turn yourself in. When you go before a judge to have the warrant lifted, there are other potential punishments that the judge could impose. For example, a judge could hold you in contempt, which can be punished by a fine or a jail sentence of up to six months. Additionally, the judge could revoke your bail if the judge concludes that you are a flight risk or the judge could raise your bail so that you have to pay more money in order to get released. You could also be required to pay a significant amount of money to the county or city if your bail is forfeited. In most counties in Pennsylvania, the defendant or the surety actually pays 10% of the bail amount. This means that if bail is set at $100,000, then the defendant would have to pay $10,000 in order to be released. If a judge finds that the defendant willfully missed court, then the defendant could be required to post the other $90,000.

How can I get a bench warrant lifted?

In most cases, the only way to get a bench warrant lifted is by turning yourself in. When you turn yourself in, the court must schedule a bench warrant hearing before a judge or commissioner within 72 hours. If the 72 hours falls on a weekend or holiday, then the hearing may be scheduled for the next regular business day. The judge who conducts the bench warrant hearing will lift the bench warrant and determine whether to reinstate and release you on the same bail, revoke bail, or raise the bail. Additionally, the prosecution may move for contempt, in which case you would have a contempt hearing.

In Philadelphia, you turn yourself in at the basement of the Criminal Justice Center. You must be there early in the morning, and then you will be seen that day and potentially released. The consequences are almost always less severe if you voluntarily turn yourself in and retain counsel to represent you at the bench warrant hearing. If you do not turn yourself in but get arrested, you will be taken to the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility and held until you can see the bench warrant judge from the prison for a video hearing.

Has Philadelphia changed its bench warrant procedures due to COVID-19?

Yes, in Philadelphia, the procedures for lifting a bench warrant are currently different from the normal procedure of turning yourself in in the basement of the Criminal Justice Center. Currently, for all cases at the Municipal Court level (misdemeanor trials and preliminary hearings), it is possible to retain a criminal defense attorney and then for the attorney to file a motion to lift the bench warrant electronically. The DA’s office will then also respond electronically as to whether they agree or disagree to the bench warrant being lifted without an in-person hearing. Once both parties file their motions, a Municipal Court judge will then decide based on the submissions whether or not to lift the bench warrant without a hearing. If the judge lifts the warrant, then the defendant will receive a new court date without having to physically go into the courthouse to resolve the warrant. If the judge denies the motion, then the defendant would still have to turn himself or herself in and have a formal hearing.

This new procedure will likely remain in effect until the COVID-19 pandemic has been resolved. It applies primarily in the Municipal Court, and the judges have been encouraged to lift the bench warrants remotely rather than force defendants to come into the building and risk exposure to the virus. Similar procedures are in place in the Court of Common Pleas, but in that court, the decision on the bench warrant goes to the judge who is assigned to the case instead of a random Municipal Court judge.

Most of the counties outside of Philadelphia have also started using similar procedures to resolve warrants for failing to appear for court. Some counties now allow motions to be filed by an attorney to resolve a bench warrant rather than requiring the defendant to turn themselves in.

What is a judge-only bench warrant?

A judge-only bench warrant means that when you get arrested on the warrant or turn yourself in, your bench warrant hearing will be held before the judge that originally issued the warrant. In Philadelphia, if you receive a normal bench warrant, then the warrant will be addressed by whichever judge happens to be assigned to bench warrant court on the day that you have your hearing. If you receive a judge-only warrant, then you will have the warrant addressed by the judge who issued it.

How long can they hold me on a bench warrant?

The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the hearing must be scheduled within 72 hours or on the next business day if the 72 hour period falls on a weekend or holiday. Once the warrant is lifted, you could still be held if the judge raises or revokes your bail. This is true both for criminal defendants and material witnesses. Sometimes, if you are arrested in a different county from the one that issued the warrant, it may be take a little bit longer to get the warrant lifted.

What happens after the bench warrant is lifted?

Once the bench warrant is lifted, the judge will schedule the case for the next hearing. If you missed your preliminary hearing, then the judge would schedule the case for the preliminary hearing. If you missed your trial date, then the case would be scheduled for trial. It is relatively rare, but in some cases, the court may conduct a hearing or trial in your absence if the court finds that you willfully failed to appear. Thus, it is possible (but unlikely) that you may have been found guilty in absentia, in which case you would have to serve your sentence. It may still be possible to appeal at that point, but whether you can do so depends on how quickly you have been arrested or turned yourself in following the in absentia sentencing.

How can I find out if I have a bench warrant?

If you missed court as a defendant, you probably have a bench warrant. The best way to find out for sure is by retaining a lawyer. If you are facing criminal charges and have a bench warrant, we are happy to look it up for you and discuss representation in the case and getting the warrant lifted. You can also check the public court dockets by searching for your name at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP.aspx. If you have a bench warrant, it will typically be indicated on the docket.

Case Study: Bench Warrant Lifted and Charges Dismissed in Commonwealth v. K.E.

Our Philadelphia bench warrant lawyers have helped numerous clients resolve both recent and older bench warrants. For example, in the case of Commonwealth v. K.E., Attorney Goldstein assisted a client who learned that he had an unresolved twenty-year-old bench warrant for knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance. K.E. had been arrested approximately two decades ago for two misdemeanor drug cases in different jurisdictions at around the same time. Although K.E. resolved one of the drug charges through participation in a treatment program, K.E. did not realize that he still had an outstanding warrant when he left the program.

K.E. moved out of state, rebuilt his life, and eventually obtained a job as a professional which required a great deal of travel for work. Over the years, K.E. had trouble re-entering the country after business trips and would be detained for up to 24 hours, but K.E. had never been arrested or informed that he had a warrant for his arrest and pending charges. K.E. had even been stopped for traffic tickets and never been told of the warrant. When returning from a recent trip, K.E. learned that he had a bench warrant from the old drug case and immediately contacted Attorney Goldstein.

Attorney Goldstein put together a mitigation packet for the District Attorney's Office showing that K.E. completed drug treatment at the time, had remained clean for twenty years, and had gone on to have a successful career in another state. After receiving the packet, the District Attorney's Office agreed to lift the bench warrant and dismiss the charges without requiring K.E. to return to Philadelphia.

Why should I retain a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer for help with my bench warrant?

As the previous example illustrates, our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully represented countless clients in criminal cases and in resolving bench warrants. Each case is different, and results are never guaranteed, but the odds of a successful outcome are significantly higher when you retain counsel and turn yourself in voluntarily. In many cases, we are able to have a client’s bail reinstated and the client released on the same day. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call or text 267-225-2545 to discuss your case today.

Goldstein Mehta LLC: Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney for a Free Bench Warrant Check Today

Name

First Name

Last Name

Phone

(###)

###

####

Email Address

What Happened?

Recent Awards For Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 9/19/20 Zak Goldstein 9/19/20

PA Superior Court: Speedy Trial Rule Requires Commonwealth to Make Reasonable Efforts to Extradite Defendant

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Morgan, holding that PA’s speedy trial rule, Rule 600, applies to defendants who are incarcerated in other states and the Commonwealth must be diligent in extraditing them back to Pennsylvania to stand trial. The Commonwealth may not simply wait until a defendant finishes serving a lengthy sentence in a another state before proceeding on criminal charges in Pennsylvania. Morgan holds that the Commonwealth must take active steps to bring the defendant to trial even when he is incarcerated in a different state.

Commonwealth v. Morgan

In October 2008, while serving a sentence in Bucks County, the defendant absconded from a work release program. Shortly thereafter, the Bucks County Sherriff’s Office (“BCSO”) filed a written complaint charging the defendant with escape, and a magisterial district judge issued a warrant for his arrest. About a week later, the BCSO received notice that the defendant was being held on homicide and firearm charges in the state of Georgia.

A preliminary hearing was held in Bucks County, in absentia, and the defendant was declared a fugitive. The BCSO sent a fax to Georgia authorities requesting that a detainer be placed on the defendant and that extradition proceedings be commenced. An official in Richmond County, Georgia responded stating that the defendant waived extradition. However, the official advised the BCSO that if the defendant was convicted and sent to jail for his Georgia charges, they would need to secure a separate detainer with the Georgia Department of Corrections and then restart the extradition process.

In February 2010, the defendant was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in Georgia. He was sentenced to a term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration in a Georgia prison. After his conviction, the Georgia authorities did not reach out to the BCSO or any Commonwealth employee. However, no BCSO or Commonwealth agent contacted the Georgia authorities for almost two years after his conviction.

In September 2012, the BCSO sent an email to the Richmond County’s Sherriff’s office requesting an update on the defendant’s case. The BCSO received a response that same day stating that he was now housed in a prison in Valdosta, Georgia and that in order to have a detainer lodged against him they would need to reach out to the Georgia Department of Corrections. The BCSO subsequently responded to this email and said that they would like a detainer lodged against him. However, the BCSO did not actually contact the Georgia Department of Corrections. Based on the record, the BCSO did not take any further action on the defendant’s case for six years.

In June 2018, the BCSO faxed a detainer request to the Georgia Department of Corrections. The Georgia Department of Corrections was able to confirm receipt of their email and then lodged a detainer against the defendant. By this point, the defendant had been incarcerated in Georgia for nearly a decade and had been scheduled to be released on October 15, 2018. The BCSO took him into custody on October 25, 2018.

Back in Pennsylvania, the defendant filed an omnibus motion arguing that his case should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 600(a)(2)(A). Specifically, he argued that the Commonwealth had failed to exercise due diligence in trying to bring him to trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied his motion. In April 2019, the defendant then elected to have a bench trial where he was found guilty of escape. He was then sentenced three and a half years to seven years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

What is Rule 600?

Rule 600(A) states that a defendant must be brought to trial within 365 days of the filing of the criminal complaint and if he is not then the case should be dismissed. The purpose of Rule 600 is to protect a defendant’s speedy trial rights, while also protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases. If a defendant is not tried within 365 days of the filing of the complaint, Rule 600 requires that the court determine whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence and whether the circumstances that caused the delay of a defendant’s trial were beyond the Commonwealth’s control.

For the purposes of computing time under Rule 600, the court will determine whether or not the Commonwealth was duly diligent in litigating its case against the defendant. In other words, when the Commonwealth causes the delay (i.e. discovery is outstanding or they have not been able to contact a necessary witness) that time ordinarily goes against the Commonwealth. However, if the defense causes the delay, then that time is not factored in for purposes of 600. If the Commonwealth violates Rule 600, then the Court should dismiss the case with prejudice. Rule 600 is generally enforced more strictly in Philadelphia than in the surrounding counties, but it does apply throughout the state.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court reversed the defendant’s conviction because they found that the Commonwealth was not duly diligent in bringing the defendant to trial. The Commonwealth filed its criminal complaint against the defendant in October 2018. As such, the Commonwealth was required to bring the defendant to trial within 365 days of that filing. However, the defendant was not brought to trial until April 2019, which was more than ten years after the expiration of the defendant’s mechanical run date under Rule 600.

The Superior Court found that it did not matter that the defendant was incarcerated in another state. It does not appear that Georgia would have extradited the defendant while his homicide charges were pending, and thus this time would not have counted against the Commonwealth. However, the Court found that there was no evidence that Georgia would not have cooperated and sent the defendant to Pennsylvania after he was convicted. Consequently, the Superior Court found that the Commonwealth did not act with due diligence because they waited more than eight years after he was convicted to reinitiate extradition proceedings against the defendant. Thus, the Commonwealth does not necessarily have to take steps to move for extradition while charge s are pending in another state, but once a defendant has been sentenced, the Commonwealth must try to extradite the defendant. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction is vacated and he will be released from prison.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Zak Goldstein 8/25/20 Zak Goldstein 8/25/20

PA Superior Court: Megan's Law Registrant May Challenge Retroactive Changes to Registration Laws Outside of PCRA Process

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Duncan. This decision did not make any substantive changes in the law. Rather, it dealt with some of the procedural difficulties that defendants have had in challenging their sex offender registration status following recent changes in the law stemming from Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Superior Court decisions. In this case, the court held that the defendant should have been appointed counsel to represent him when he was challenging the requirement that he register as a sex offender despite being a juvenile when he committed the crimes which triggered registration. This decision makes it clear that registrants may bring challenges to their registration status in the trial court in many cases even when the time for filing a post-conviction relief act petition has expired.

Commonwealth v. Duncan

The defendant entered into a negotiated guilty plea to the charges of robbery, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful restraint, recklessly endangering another person, and carrying firearms without a license. The defendant received a sentenced of 4-10 years’ imprisonment. Notably, the defendant was a juvenile when he committed his offenses, even though he was charged as an adult. The defendant did not file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence.

More than a decade after his plea, the defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The defendant alleged that right before he was to be released from prison, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections told him that he must register as a sex offender upon his release pursuant to the then-effective version of Megan’s Law. This would be due to the kidnapping of a minor conviction. The defendant argued that requiring him to register as a sex offender violated the Ex Post Facto principles of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz. Further, the defendant argued that the Commonwealth was in breach of their agreement because he had never agreed to register as a sex offender. At the time that he pleaded guilty, that charge did not require sex offender registration.

The court initially treated his petition as a Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. At first, the PCRA court agreed with the defendant and ordered that he be removed from the sex offender registry. However, the PCRA court later vacated its decision to allow the Commonwealth an opportunity to respond to his petition. The Commonwealth responded that his request should be denied because it was an untimely filed PCRA petition. The PCRA imposes very strict deadlines and if a defendant misses a deadline they will often not be afforded any relief. Consequently, because the PCRA court thought the PCRA governed the defendant’s petition, it denied his request due to his petition being untimely. The defendant was subsequently appointed counsel, and he then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant only argued that he should have been appointed counsel to help him litigate his claim.

The Ex Post Facto Clause of The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions

Both the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitutions prohibit Ex Post Facto laws. Those are laws that criminalize past behavior. The reason behind is that individuals have the right to adequate notice and should not be punished for actions that were legal when they did took them. In order to qualify as an Ex Post Facto law, the law must 1) apply retroactively and 2) negatively impact the offender.

In the late ‘90s and early 2000’s, states across the country began passing laws that required individuals convicted of sexual offenses to register as sex offenders. These early Megan’s Law statutes imposed onerous requirements on defendants that were often seemingly punitive in nature. These laws were frequently challenged as violations of the Ex Post Facto clause because they applied to defendants retroactively (i.e. defendants were required to register as sex offenders even though they committed their crimes before the passage of these statutes).

Pennsylvania and many other states would argue that these Megan’s Law requirements were not punitive and therefore the Ex Post Facto clause of their respective constitutions did not apply. And, unfortunately, some of these governments had some success. For example, the state of Alaska was successfully able to defend its Megan’s Law statute all the way to the United States Supreme Court. However, in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Muniz that Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law statute violated the Ex Post Facto clauses of both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a new Megan’s Law (SORNA) statute in the aftermath of the Muniz decision which certainly guarantees that this fight is far from over.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed with the defendant that he should have been appointed an attorney to represent him when he litigated his PCRA petition. The Court further stated that the PCRA court was not required to treat the defendant’s petition as a PCRA petition. Specifically, the Superior Court cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Lacombe which held that because he was raising Ex Post Facto claims, the PCRA court was not required to treat his filing as a PCRA petition and therefore he was not subjected to the stringent filing deadlines of the PCRA. Further, the Superior Court stated that the defendant “might have a valid Ex Post Facto and due process claim” and therefore remanded his case for consideration. This is an important decision due to the deadline issues. The PCRA requires a defendant to file his or her post-conviction relief act petition within one year of his or her sentence becoming final. Obviously, when the legislature passes a new law ten years later imposing new sex offender requirements on someone who did not have to register at that time that they were convicted, that person should have some procedural mechanism for challenging the law. By imposing the one-year deadline for filing a PCRA petition on these petitioners, the courts were able to block them from ever challenging these unconstitutional laws. By recognizing that these filings are not really PCRAs, the appellate courts have removed some of the deadlines for filing them and allowed these important issues to be resolved on the merits.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers