Com. v. Aleman, J.
1200 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.May 8, 2018Background
- Joe Aleman pled guilty in 2009 to multiple sexual offenses against juveniles (rape of a child, incest, indecent assault) and received an aggregate 30–60 year sentence in 2010; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Aleman filed a timely PCRA petition in May 2011 alleging his plea was unknowing because he was taking psychotropic medication; counsel was appointed and later withdrawn/changed.
- In September 2016 Aleman amended to assert, based on Commonwealth v. Wolfe, that the mandatory minimums under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 (rape of a child) were unconstitutional under Alleyne.
- PCRA counsel moved to withdraw, concluding Alleyne-based relief was foreclosed by Commonwealth v. Washington (Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review); the court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and denied relief in July 2017.
- Aleman appealed pro se, arguing (1) his mandatory minimum sentence was illegal under the Sixth Amendment/Alleyne and (2) his guilty plea was unknowing/unintelligent due to medication and lack of explanation of elements.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Washington controlled because Aleman’s judgment of sentence was final before Alleyne and rejecting his plea-defect claims (colloquy and written plea form showed he understood elements).
Issues
| Issue | Aleman’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of mandatory minimums under Alleyne | Alleyne/Wolfe make §9718 mandatory minimums unconstitutional; his PCRA was timely so Alleyne should apply | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review per Washington because Aleman’s sentence was final before Alleyne | Denied — Washington controls; Aleman’s sentence was final pre-Alleyne, so Alleyne relief unavailable |
| Plea involuntary due to psychotropic medication | Medication impaired his ability to enter a knowing, voluntary plea; court should have conducted competency colloquy | Claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is waived; record shows plea was knowing | Denied — claim waived and meritless on record |
| Counsel ineffective for not explaining elements | Counsel failed to advise/explain offense elements to him | Written plea colloquy and attached informations list elements; Aleman affirmed understanding | Denied — no arguable merit and Aleman bound by statements in plea colloquy |
| Failure to explain facts/elements in an understandable way | Court and counsel did not explain elements/facts in a manner he could understand | Plea form asked and Aleman answered he understood; attached informations included elements | Denied — record shows he acknowledged understanding; plea statements binding |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held §9718 facially unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact that increases mandatory sentence is an element requiring jury finding)
- Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 177 A.3d 182 (Pa. 2018) (Washington limited to judgments final before Alleyne; timely petitions where judgment not final may obtain Alleyne relief)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and three-prong test for PCRA ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Stork, 737 A.2d 789 (Pa. Super. 1999) (defendant is bound by statements made during plea colloquy)