Rides2Work Losses Denied: Pa. Court Upholds Tax Ruling on Carpool Startup Without Sales

Trucking Image ### Sex Offender’s Late Appeal Shut Down by Time-Bar

Pennsylvania’s Superior Court slammed the door on Keith Vernon Davis’s second bid for post-conviction relief, ruling his petition untimely and tossing it without touching the merits. Davis, serving 7½ to 15 years for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and aggravated indecent assault, couldn’t overcome the strict one-year deadline under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). The unanimous panel affirmed the dismissal on December 8, 2025, stressing courts lack jurisdiction over late filings unless narrow exceptions apply.

It all started in 2017 when Davis cut a deal, pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a victim in Cambria County. Despite his later push to back out of the plea, the judge locked in the negotiated prison term that December. Davis lost his direct appeal in 2019, with the state Supreme Court denying review, making his sentence final on November 14 that year—no U.S. Supreme Court lifeline.

He fired off a first PCRA petition in early 2020, griping about his lawyer’s failure to chase alibi witnesses and a supposed conflict of interest. After hearings, that got shot down, and the Superior Court upheld it in 2021. Fast-forward to January 2025: Davis, now representing himself, filed round two, again blasting trial counsel’s effectiveness. But the PCRA court hit pause with a dismissal notice, pointing out the glaring five-year delay past the one-year PCRA clock.

Here’s the legal gut-punch: PCRA petitions must land within one year of a final sentence, or courts have zero power to hear them—it’s a hard jurisdictional wall, not a suggestion. Davis needed to plead and prove one of three exceptions—like new irrefutable facts, a fresh constitutional violation, or government meddling blocking his claim—and file within a year of when he could’ve raised it. He whiffed entirely in his petition, ignoring the bar. For good measure, the appeals court swatted down his new “government interference” argument in his brief: too late, since PCRA exceptions must debut in the original filing, not sprung on appeal. Case closed, order affirmed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *