Commonwealth v. Cruz

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed orders denying Jose Antonio Cruz’s PCRA petitions. The court held that the petitions were untimely because reinstatement of the right to seek discretionary review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not reset the PCRA filing period, particularly where Cruz had already received direct appellate and PCRA review. The court therefore did not reach the merits of Cruz’s ineffective-assistance and Brady claims.

Holdings

1. Cruz's September 30, 2020 PCRA petition was patently untimely because his judgment of sentence became final on October 22, 2014, thirty days after the Superior Court affirmed his judgment of sentence and the time for seeking Pennsylvania Supreme Court review expired.
2. Reinstatement of Cruz's right to file a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not reset the finality calculation for the entire judgment of sentence because Cruz had already received his constitutional direct appeal and had litigated earlier PCRA claims.
3. Cruz's notices of appeal were timely under the prisoner mailbox rule because he placed them in the prison mail system within the thirty-day appeal period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cruz's September 30, 2020 PCRA petition was timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), notwithstanding the reinstatement of his right to file a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
2. Whether reinstatement of the right to file a petition for allowance of appeal reset the finality date of Cruz's judgment of sentence for purposes of the PCRA time bar.
3. Whether the notices of appeal from the PCRA dismissal orders were timely under the prisoner mailbox rule.

Disposition

affirmed