Commonwealth v. Tyrell Giles
Whether a PCRA court may grant nunc pro tunc permission to file an untimely PCRA petition based on prior PCRA counsel's failure to file a timely first petition, when no statutory exception was pleaded.
Summary by John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026.
- CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
- Docket967 MDA 2025
- Citation2026 Pa. Super. 87
- DecidedApril 28, 2026
- DispositionAffirmed
- OpinionRead the opinion | Court PDF
What the court held
The one-year deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by equitable tolling or a nunc pro tunc order; only the three exceptions in ยง 9545(b)(1) excuse a late petition, and the petitioner must plead and prove one. Giles invoked none, and Commonwealth v. Bradley does not create a new exception, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Commonwealth v. Laird. Counsel's abandonment can sometimes qualify as a newly discovered fact under Commonwealth v. Bennett, but Giles neither invoked that theory nor showed the failure was unknown and undiscoverable with due diligence.
Why it matters. When a first petition is missed because of counsel's error, the only path is to plead the newly-discovered-fact exception with facts showing the petitioner did not know of and could not have discovered the abandonment, filed within one year of learning it. A bare nunc pro tunc request or reliance on Bradley will not confer jurisdiction, and the Superior Court raises timeliness on its own.
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.