Commonwealth v. Leroy Kenneth Thomas
Whether a PCRA court had jurisdiction to correct an admittedly illegal probation-revocation sentence when the petition was untimely and the only claimed exception was that former direct-appeal counsel misinformed the petitioner about the PCRA deadline.
Summary by John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026.
- CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
- Docket575 WDA 2025
- Citation2026 Pa. Super. 74
- DecidedApril 17, 2026
- DispositionVacated; original sentence reinstated
- OpinionRead the opinion | Court PDF
What the court held
The petition was untimely, and former counsel's bad advice about the deadline is not a newly discovered fact. Counsel's ineffectiveness triggers the exception only when it causes a complete deprivation of review and only when an attorney-client relationship existed at the time; here counsel's appointment ended when the revocation sentence became final, so there was no duty to file or advise about a PCRA petition and no abandonment. Even an illegal sentence cannot be corrected under the PCRA unless the petition is timely or fits an exception, and the parties' agreement that the sentence was illegal cannot confer jurisdiction. The grant of relief and the 2025 resentencing were void, and the original 2021 sentence was reinstated despite its acknowledged illegality.
Why it matters. Once direct review ends, the PCRA deadline is the petitioner's own responsibility, and mistaken advice from former counsel will not excuse a late filing. A legality-of-sentence claim, however strong, is lost if the petition is untimely, and a PCRA court cannot rely on the Commonwealth's concession to reach the merits.
Does this decision affect a case you know? The window to act on a new decision can be as short as one year from the date it was announced. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the opinion before relying on it.