Com. v. Mowery, A.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 107 MDA 2018

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; July 10, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ashley Regina Mowery appeals a December 18, 2017 order from the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed her Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition without a hearing and denied her motion to amend the petition. Mowery had previously pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after shooting her then-boyfriend, Montez Perry, and was sentenced to four to twelve years in prison in March 2016. She did not file a direct appeal but submitted a timely PCRA petition on November 20, 2016, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to pursue a potential house-arrest sentencing option discussed with the district attorney.

Counsel was appointed and later filed a no-merit letter, concluding that Mowery's claims did not demonstrate that counsel's alleged ineffectiveness led to an involuntary guilty plea. The PCRA court agreed, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and advised Mowery of its intent to dismiss her petition if no objections were filed within twenty days. Although she did not object, on October 9, 2017, previously withdrawn counsel submitted a "Petition to Preserve Jurisdiction Pursuant to Newly Discovered Evidence," based on a letter from Perry stating Mowery was not the shooter. The PCRA court ordered the Commonwealth to respond, but subsequently dismissed Mowery’s PCRA petition and denied her motion regarding the newly discovered evidence as untimely.

On appeal, Mowery contends the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing her petition related to the new evidence. The appellate court has vacated the previous orders and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The standard of review for trial court orders under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) involves determining if the PCRA court's decision is supported by evidence and free from legal error. While factual findings of the PCRA court receive deference, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The PCRA court denied Appellant's claim regarding Mr. Perry's new information, concluding that a petition for newly discovered evidence was improperly considered a second PCRA petition, as it did not meet the timeliness requirements outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). This statute mandates that any PCRA petition, including subsequent ones, must be filed within one year of the sentence becoming final unless a timeliness exception is proven. 

The Appellant's initial timely PCRA petition was still pending when she filed the 'Petition to Preserve Jurisdiction.' According to Pa.R.Crim.P. 905, amendments to a pending petition are allowed to achieve substantial justice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that an amendment to a pending, timely PCRA petition can be granted even after the one-year time limit, irrespective of whether the amendments relate to the original claims. The discretion to permit such amendments underscores the importance of allowing petitioners the opportunity to pursue collateral relief, as the PCRA's time restrictions often represent their only chance for relief in state court. However, it is crucial that any amendments must be sought and granted by the PCRA court, as they are not self-authorizing.

Appellant submitted a Supplement to her previously filed Petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), indicating the intent to amend her petition to include newly discovered evidence regarding Mr. Perry’s recantation. Despite this, the PCRA court dismissed her timely petition without ruling on her request to amend, treating it as a new post-conviction petition subject to the one-year time limit. The court's dismissal was deemed an error of law, as previous rulings established that subsequent petitions can be considered amendments to a pending petition. The appellate court vacated the PCRA court's orders and remanded the case, instructing the PCRA court to evaluate the amendment request under the guidelines of Pa.R.Crim. P. 905(A). The jurisdiction was relinquished, and judgment was entered.