The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled against Derrick Lamar King, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The court determined that King’s petition was untimely under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). This decision affects King, who is currently serving a five to ten-year sentence for firearm-related charges.

The court's ruling highlights the strict time limits imposed by the PCRA for filing petitions. King’s situation underscores the importance of adhering to these deadlines, as failure to do so can result in the inability to challenge a conviction.

Background

Derrick Lamar King was involved in a legal dispute stemming from a 2017 traffic stop initiated by Officer Matthew Cavallo. King was a backseat passenger in a vehicle that caught the officer's attention due to suspicious movement inside. Upon investigation, Officer Cavallo found King with a small amount of marijuana and a revolver hidden under the front passenger seat. King had a prior felony conviction, which prohibited him from possessing a firearm, leading to multiple charges against him.

King was tried and found guilty of being a person not permitted to possess firearms. In December 2018, he received a sentence of five to ten years in prison. After the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction in November 2019, King did not seek further review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In 2020, he filed a timely PCRA petition, but it was denied, and he did not appeal that decision.

The Ruling

On January 30, 2026, King filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of his sentence. However, the lower court denied this petition, stating that King was ineligible for habeas corpus relief because a remedy might be available under the PCRA. The court noted, “a remedy may be available” for his illegality claim under the PCRA.

The Superior Court, led by Judge Lane, affirmed the lower court's decision but on different grounds. The court emphasized that claims that could be brought under the PCRA must be filed under that Act, stating, “Appellant’s selected designation for their filing does not control our treatment of the filing.” The court found that King’s habeas corpus petition effectively raised a challenge to the legality of his sentence, which is a claim cognizable under the PCRA.

Impact

This ruling clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the PCRA and the importance of filing petitions within the specified time frame. King’s case serves as a reminder that defendants must adhere to the PCRA’s one-year time limit for filing petitions after their judgment of sentence becomes final. In King’s case, his judgment became final on December 23, 2019, and he did not file his petition until January 30, 2026, making it facially untimely.

Moreover, the court noted that Pennsylvania courts may consider untimely petitions only if the petitioner can prove one of three exceptions to the time bar. King failed to present any arguments invoking these exceptions, which further solidified the court's decision to deny his petition. This ruling reinforces the notion that procedural compliance is crucial in post-conviction relief cases.

What's Next

King's options for appeal appear limited following this ruling. He may seek further review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but given the court's clear stance on the timeliness issue, the likelihood of success may be low. There are no related cases pending that could impact this decision.