Com. v. Aguirre, F.
527 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Ferdinand Aguirre was convicted in 2004 of third-degree murder, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a license; he received consecutive sentences totaling 33½–67 years.
- Aguirre’s direct appeal was denied in 2005; his judgment of sentence became final when the time to seek allowance of appeal expired on October 31, 2005.
- He filed a first PCRA petition in 2006, which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Aguirre filed a second PCRA petition on June 1, 2012, and in January 2015 he amended pro se to assert that Alleyne v. United States invalidated his sentence; counsel later filed a formal amended petition in August 2015.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because (1) the Alleyne-based claim was filed more than 60 days after Alleyne and (2) Alleyne has not been held retroactive on collateral review by the U.S. or Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition asserting an Alleyne claim was timely | Aguirre argued Alleyne entitled him to relief and the court’s allowance to amend relieved any 60-day filing requirement | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued petition was filed well past the 60-day window and PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and cannot be extended | Court held petition untimely; allowance to amend did not excuse the 60-day requirement and court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Alleyne constitutes a "newly-recognized constitutional right" that is retroactive for PCRA time-bar exception | Aguirre analogized Alleyne to Miller/Montgomery and sought retroactive application | Commonwealth argued neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor PA Supreme Court has held Alleyne retroactive on collateral review | Court held Alleyne is not established as retroactive for collateral review; Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) not satisfied |
| Whether the PCRA court could relate back the amendment dates to cure timeliness | Aguirre suggested relation-back (citing Williams) would make the Alleyne claim timely as to earlier filings | Commonwealth argued relation-back cannot make a post-Alleyne claim timely to a pre-Alleyne filing and relation-back to the January 2015 filing would not help | Court held relation-back theory fails because Alleyne did not exist when earlier petitions were filed and the January 2015 filing was already untimely |
| Whether the PCRA court’s grant of leave to amend implied waiver of jurisdictional time limits | Aguirre contended the court’s May 2015 leave to amend excused prior untimeliness | Commonwealth/PCRA court maintained courts cannot extend jurisdictional PCRA time bars and the order said nothing about waiving timeliness requirements | Court held grant of leave to amend did not waive or restart jurisdictional deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be treated as an element to be found by a jury)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violated Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (held Miller retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and cannot be extended)