Com. v. Abdullah, A.
Com. v. Abdullah, A. No. 2521 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Ayub Abdullah was convicted in 2007 of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault for a 2005 beating of a 13‑year‑old; sentenced to 5–10 years plus probation; no direct appeal filed.
- Abdullah filed a first pro se PCRA petition in 2007 raising ineffective assistance, after‑discovered evidence, and excessive sentence; counsel filed a Finley letter and the petition was dismissed in 2008; no appeal.
- In October 2015 Abdullah filed a second PCRA petition seeking relief based on Alleyne v. United States and Commonwealth v. Hopkins, arguing a recently recognized constitutional rule rendered his sentence illegal and claiming he filed within 60 days of Hopkins being made available in the prison.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, then dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely and without merit; Abdullah appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the 2015 petition met the timeliness exceptions in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1), particularly subsection (iii) (new constitutional right held to be retroactive), and whether Alleyne/Hopkins applied retroactively to Abdullah’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Abdullah: Petition timely under §9545(b)(1)(iii) because filed within 60 days of Hopkins availability | Commonwealth: Judgment final in 2007; 2015 filing is untimely and Abdullah fails to satisfy §9545(b)(1) exceptions | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Retroactivity of Alleyne/Hopkins | Abdullah: Alleyne/Hopkins announce a constitutional rule that applies retroactively and thus satisfies §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth: Alleyne/Hopkins have not been held retroactive by PA or US Supreme Court; do not meet §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Alleyne/Hopkins not held retroactive; cannot rescue untimely petition |
| Cognizability of legality‑of‑sentence claim on collateral review | Abdullah: Legality of sentence is non‑waivable and cognizable despite timeliness | Commonwealth: Legality claims still subject to PCRA timeliness rules; must be in timely petition | Legality claims must be timely; cannot bypass §9545 time limits |
| Application of Hopkins (statute comparison) | Abdullah: His sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 is structurally similar to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 (invalidated in Hopkins) | Commonwealth: Even if similar, retroactivity requirement unmet; Hopkins does not make Abdullah’s claim timely | Comparison irrelevant because retroactivity not established; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (held facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (addressed constitutionality of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 in light of Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; equitable tolling not available)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§9545(b)(1)(iii) requires the new right already be held retroactive when petition filed)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)