Dem, my first reply to your post is quoted below for convenience. This particular subject of jurisdiction is just one element of Sandusky's PCRA petition. I've added my notes below on all the elements that provide eligibility for relief under the PCRA law. I'd like to get your thoughts.
PCRA notes
-----
The article linked below highlights that the key issue that needs to be addressed in a PCRA petition is whether the 'truth determining process' was affected. From that article: "
The courts have stated that the issue must go directly to the truth-determining process. (Commonwealth v. Bennett, 2007)." Below is the text of the section of PCRA law that outlines eligibility for relief.
Here is a summary of things that may cause a PCRA petition to be granted, Eligibility for Relief, from Title 42, §9543 (a) (2):
(i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
(ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
(iii) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent.
(iv) The improper obstruction by government officials of the petitioner's right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court.
(v) (Deleted by amendment).
(vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.
(vii) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum.
(viii) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction.
The majority of the arguments in Sandusky's PCRA petition are related to items (i) and (ii). However, each of those items require that the issues complained of also affected the process such that no reliable adjudication of or determination of truth could have taken place. IMO, Sandusky's PCRA petition does not offer sufficient arguments to counter that requirement.
Item (iii) does not apply.
Item (iv) does not seem to apply and I don't believe the PCRA petition argues that point. Sandusky filed a post-sentence appeal which Cleland denied in an opinion and order. Sandusky then appealed to the PA Superior Court which was denied in an opinion and order. He then appealed to the PA Supreme Court which denied it in a one sentence order. Sandusky then filed his PCRA petition one year (as required, so it was timely) from the Supreme Court denial, on 4/2/2015.
Item (vi) regarding new evidence might apply. The PCRA petition offered up evidence that wasn't presented at trial regarding Victims 2 and 8. That does not mean that evidence wasn't available to Sandusky's counsel at trial (so this issue may simply revert back to item (ii), ineffective assistance of counsel). The PCRA petition also outlines potential financial motives of all of the victims and seeks discovery of the agreements with their civil attorneys. One potential issue is that this is not a really a new issue. Amendola asked each victim whether they had civil attorneys, if they signed agreements with them, and if they had paid them yet, and if they knew what the agreements said. Most but not all victims had civil attorneys, none of those had paid them yet, and none really knew what was in the agreements they signed. But the point is, the jury was fully aware of all this. Once the prosecution and defense rested, Cleland gave the jury instructions which included how to assess the credibility of witnesses and that they need to consider all the facts and issues including other potential motivations. A final note here - item 6 requires new evidence that would have affected the outcome of the trial. I do not know if "affected the outcome of the trial" applies to each individual conviction or whether the ultimate sentence must be affected. Both can be considered "outcomes of the trial". The point is Sandusky was convicted on 48 charges, but is serving time on just 4 charges (the remaining charges are being served concurrently).
Item (vii) does not apply. The sentence for each charge was in accordance with the law. In addition, Sandusky is only serving time (30 - 60 years) on 4 charges of IDSI against Victims 1, 4, 9, and 10. The remaining charges are being served concurrently. If he were serving time on all of the charges, it would have been 80 years 7 months to 161 years 2 months.
Finally, item (viii) can offer relief if "the court proceeding took place in a tribunal which did not have jurisdiction". The only court proceeding that Sandusky's PCRA petition argues against is the subject matter jurisdiction of the grand jury investigation. But it's worth pointing out that the grand jury did not determine guilt or innocence. The Centre County court did have the proper jurisdiction to determine Snadusky's guilt/innocence, since the majority of his crimes were committed in Centre County.
-----
Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)
12/16/2011
http://www.mcdonalddefense.com/2011/12/16/pennsylvanias-post-conviction-relief-act-pcra/
The PCRA is an indirect method of appeal in criminal cases. A direct appeal is when a criminal case is appealed from the Court of Common Pleas, where the accused lost the case, and wants to challenge some aspect of it. For more on direct appeals, read my post here. An indirect appeal in a PCRA allows the person to have the case reconsidered when a direct appeal to the Superior Court has been denied.
The PCRA must be filed within one year of the denial of the final direct appeal, or after the conviction if the defendant chooses not to use direct appeals. The one year rule does have some exceptions. The basic exceptions include: where counsel effectively abandons the defendant in the PCRA process, where the petition is an extension of a previously filed petition that was within the one year limit, where the government blocked the petition in some manner, where the new evidence could not have been known within the one year limit, and finally, where the court has determined that constitutional rights are such that the extension must be given.
PCRA is limited on its grounds for appeal. The full text of the act can be read here, but I will summarize it briefly. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq, you may only begin the process for the PCRA if your conviction or sentence resulted from:
- A violation of the Constitution of Pennsylvania or of the United states, or of the laws of the United States, and the violation occurred under circumstances which so undermined the process that no reliable adjudication of truth could have taken place
- There was ineffective assistance of counsel such that no reliable determination of truth could have taken place
- A plea of guilty was gotten under circumstances which make it likely that the defendant was induced to falsely make the statement and the defendant is innocent
- Government officials wrongly obstructed the defendant’s right to appeal where an issue for appeal was present and capable of being appealed
- New evidence has come to light which would have changed the outcome of the trial
- A sentence was imposed which was greater than the lawful maximum
- The court proceeding took place in a tribunal which did not have jurisdiction
Additionally, the statute requires that the allegation in the petition has not been previously litigated in court (it is a new issue) and it has not been waived by a failure to raise the issue (you didn’t bring it up and you were only permitted to bring it up at a certain point of the proceeding). The failure to litigate the issue cannot be the result of a rational or strategic move by the defendant’s attorney at trial.
You may notice the phrase “reliable adjudication of the truth” or “reliable determination of the truth.” These phrases are synonymous and mean that, because of what happened at trial, the facts or process was so distorted that no one could have discovered the truth. The courts have stated that the issue must go directly to the truth-determining process. (Commonwealth v. Bennett, 2007).
Another thing to mention is the process that a person must be given for the court to have properly reviewed the PCRA claim. Although the amount of due process required is less stringent than at trial, a defendant who petitions is still entitled to present his or her claims in a meaningful time and have them considered in a meaningful manner.
A petition for post-conviction relief must conform to certain processes and is subject to parameters defined by statute and the court. When you consider a PCRA, you also need to consider what attorney you will hire, and find one with the experience and the dedication to see the petition through. Failure to obtain the right counsel can result in the denial of your petition.
Call Shannon K. McDonald to discuss your potential PCRA petition today.
-----
Post Conviction Relief Act, PCRA
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...M&ttl=42&div=0&chpt=95&mobile_choice=suppress
Title 42
Chapter 95. POST-TRIAL MATTERS
SUBCHAPTER B. POST CONVICTION RELIEF
§ 9543. Eligibility for relief.
(a) General rule.--To be eligible for relief under this subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following:
(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted:
(i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime;
(ii) awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the crime; or
(iii) serving a sentence which must expire before the person may commence serving the disputed sentence.
(2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following:
(i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
(ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
(iii) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent.
(iv) The improper obstruction by government officials of the petitioner's right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court.
(v) (Deleted by amendment).
(vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.
(vii) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum.
(viii) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction.
(3) That the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived.
(4) That the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel.
