Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(b) permits dismissal of a PCRA matter based on prejudice caused by delay in filing an amended petition. The Court holds that the provision applies to delays in filing both original and amended PCRA petitions, but does not decide the separate question of a petitioner's obligation to move the litigation forward.
Holdings
- Section 9543(b) applies to substantial delays in filing either an original PCRA petition or an amended PCRA petition when the Commonwealth demonstrates prejudice at an evidentiary hearing, subject to the statute's reasonable-diligence exception.
Questions Presented
- Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(b), which permits dismissal when delay in filing prejudices the Commonwealth, applies to delay in filing an amended PCRA petition.
- What obligation, if any, a PCRA petitioner has to seek expeditious litigation of a pending PCRA petition.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- Commonwealth v. Renchenski, 581 Pa. 614, 866 A.2d 368 (2005)(prior procedural history)
- Renchenski v. Commonwealth, 909 A.2d 898 (Pa.Super.2006) (table), No. 332 WDA 2004(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 578 Pa. 587, 854 A.2d 489 (2004)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 706 A.2d 855 (Pa.Super.1998)(applied below)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 607 Pa. 597, 9 A.3d 613 (2010)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 596 Pa. 475, 946 A.2d 93 (2008)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Dellisanti, 583 Pa. 106, 876 A.2d 366 (2005)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 603 Pa. 223, 983 A.2d 666 (2009)(applied)
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001)(applied)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 599 Pa. 599, 962 A.2d 1160 (2009)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…