Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Emma Turner

Summary

The Court held that the PCRA's requirement that a petitioner be serving a sentence when relief is granted is constitutional as applied to Turner, because due process creates no entitlement to collateral review after the petitioner is no longer subject to a state sentence. Turner had an opportunity to pursue her ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal or during the period when she remained eligible for PCRA relief, but did not do so. The Court also held that neither habeas corpus nor coram nobis supplied an alternative avenue for relief. Justice Saylor and Justice Todd dissented, concluding that Turner should not be penalized for following the Court's stated preference for deferring ineffectiveness claims to collateral review.