Com. v. Appler, S.
582 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Shaun Ronald Appler pleaded guilty on November 5, 2012 to multiple robberies, thefts, and related conspiracy/attempt counts across three dockets and received an aggregate sentence of 10–20 years.
- He did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final December 5, 2012.
- Appler filed a timely first PCRA petition in July 2013; counsel filed a Finley letter, the court dismissed the petition and permitted counsel to withdraw in December 2013.
- On November 2, 2015 Apppler filed a pro se motion to modify sentence (treated as a second PCRA petition) asserting Alleyne-based illegality of sentence; counsel again filed a Finley letter arguing untimeliness.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, dismissed the petition as untimely on March 7, 2016, and Apppler appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and no retroactivity exception applied for Alleyne-based claims.
Issues
| Issue | Apppler's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not seeking correction of an allegedly unlawful sentence under plain error | Counsel should have sought correction because Pennsylvania law permits correcting unlawful sentences via plain error | Counsel (and court) treated claim as untimely collateral attack, not cognizable on PCRA | Claim dismissed as part of untimely PCRA petition; court did not reach ineffectiveness merits |
| Whether Apppler’s sentence is unlawful under Alleyne and related Pennsylvania decisions | Alleyne renders mandatory-minimum sentencing statutes unconstitutional; Hopkins and subsequent authority mean those statutes are not severable, so sentence is illegal and should apply retroactively | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania; Hopkins did not announce a retroactive rule | Court held Alleyne-based claim is not a valid retroactivity exception to PCRA timeliness and thus petition is untimely |
| Whether Montgomery requires retroactive application of Alleyne on collateral review | Montgomery requires states to give retroactive effect to new substantive rules, so Alleyne should be applied retroactively | Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted Montgomery as not making Alleyne retroactive on collateral review | Court held Montgomery does not help Apppler; Pennsylvania precedent forecloses retroactive relief for Alleyne |
| Whether the petition could be recharacterized (e.g., motion to modify as PCRA) altering timeliness | Apppler argued courts may construe filings to reach merits rather than dismiss on form-based grounds | Commonwealth/court treated the filing as a PCRA petition and applied PCRA timeliness rules; courts may not disregard jurisdictional time limits | Court affirmed that timeliness is jurisdictional and recharacterization cannot overcome untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing penalty are elements that must be found by a jury)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (states must give retroactive effect to new substantive rules)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (discussion of severability of mandatory sentencing provisions)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne-related claims and retroactivity analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Hopkins did not announce a retroactive rule)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and cannot be waived)