Com. v. Alvarez, F.
402 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Felix Alvarez was convicted in 2009 of third-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, four REAP counts, and conspiracy, with a 28–60 year aggregate sentence.
- Appellant's judgment of sentence became final on May 1, 2011, after reviewing court proceedings.
- He filed a series of PCRA petitions beginning February 6, 2012, with multiple denials and appellate denials through 2015.
- In December 2016, Alvarez filed a pro se petition for habeas relief, which the trial court treated as a PCRA petition and dismissed as untimely.
- The trial court dismissed the PCRA petition January 4, 2017 for lack of jurisdiction due to the one-year time-bar, and Alvarez appealed.
- This Court held the PCRA is the proper vehicle for post-conviction relief and that Alvarez's petition was patently untimely with no applicable exception proved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under the PCRA time-bar. | Alvarez | Commonwealth | Untimely; no timely exception proven. |
| Whether the petition could be treated as a PCRA petition. | Alvarez | Commonwealth | PCRA proper vehicle; habeas petition subordinated. |
| Whether Alvarez raised any valid timeliness exceptions or waivable arguments on appeal. | Alvarez | Commonwealth | Exceptions not raised below; waived per Wharton. |
| Whether the court’s treatment of the petition as untimely deprives it of jurisdiction. | Alvarez | Commonwealth | Jurisdictional bar applicable; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is sole means of post-conviction relief; issues outside PCRA cannot be raised via habeas)
- Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 155 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2017) (time-bar and exceptions; jurisdictional and no equitable tolling)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (exceptions to PCRA timing cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (recent emphasis that post-judgment motions after finality are treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (motion to correct illegal sentence treated as PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007) (habeas claims outside PCRA sphere available for relief)
- Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007) (recognizes limits of habeas for PCRA-covered issues)