From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Townsville

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 20, 2015
No. J-S43024-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 20, 2015)

Opinion

J-S43024-15 No. 2748 EDA 2014

11-20-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. AUBREY TOWNSVILLE Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 16, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0306661-1998
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.

Appellant, Aubrey Townsville, appeals pro se from the order dismissing as untimely his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). As the PCRA court correctly observed that Townsville failed to establish the application of an exemption to the PCRA's jurisdictional time-bar, we affirm.

On January 25, 1999, Townsville was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of fifteen to thirty years after being convicted of aggravated assault, terroristic threats, false imprisonment, and unlawful restraint. After this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on October 25, 2002, Townsville filed a timely first PCRA petition in July 2003. That petition was ultimately denied for lack of merit.

On April 23, 2012, Townsville filed his second PCRA petition, which forms the basis of this appeal. In his petition, Townsville conceded that the petition was facially untimely, but argued that it qualified for a time-bar exception. The PCRA court reviewed the petition, concluded that Townsville had failed to establish that the exception applied, and dismissed the petition. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Townsville once again concedes that his petition was facially untimely. But he claims that the petition qualifies for the timeliness exception provided at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) as he alleged that the Supreme Court of the United States recognized a new constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in negotiating a plea in Lafler v. Cooper , 132 S.Ct. 1367 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye , 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012). However, this Court has held that Frye and Lafler did not create a new a constitutional right sufficient to qualify for the exception contained in subsection (iii). See Commonwealth v. Feliciano , 69 A.3d 1270, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2013). Thus, the PCRA court correctly dismissed Townsville's petition.

Townsville also argues on appeal that his family's discovery of a plea offer presented by the Commonwealth, allowing for a four to ten year sentence, attached to the Notes of Testimony, supports his effort to avoid the time-bar. However, this allegation does not meaningfully distinguish this case from Feliciano. See Feliciano , 69 A.3d at 1273.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/20/2015


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Townsville

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 20, 2015
No. J-S43024-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Townsville

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. AUBREY TOWNSVILLE Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Nov 20, 2015

Citations

No. J-S43024-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 20, 2015)