Com. v. Armolt, J.
Com. v. Armolt, J. No. 23 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Jeffrey Lynn Armolt pled guilty (Dec. 22, 2003) to three counts of rape of a child for sexual intercourse with his girlfriend’s 12‑year‑old daughter; sentence 15–30 years per plea agreement (April 12, 2004).
- Appellant did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on May 12, 2004.
- Appellant filed a serial pro se PCRA petition on October 19, 2016, more than one year after his judgment became final.
- The trial court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss; Appellant responded; the court dismissed the petition as untimely on December 14, 2016.
- Appellant invoked statutory exceptions to the PCRA time‑bar, arguing “new facts” and new constitutional rules based on recent judicial decisions; the court rejected those arguments and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Armolt's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) as "new facts" based on later court decisions supporting ineffective‑assistance/sentence claims | Petition is untimely; judgment final in 2004 and petition filed in 2016, so statutory one‑year rule bars relief | Dismissed as untimely; statutory time‑bar applies |
| Applicability of new constitutional rules (Alleyne/Frye/Lafler) | These decisions create new constitutional rights or rules that toll the PCRA deadline under Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Those U.S. Supreme Court decisions do not provide retroactive relief here; Alleyne not retroactive to sentences final before decision; Frye/Lafler do not create a new right for Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) purposes | Exceptions in Sections 9545(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) do not apply; petition remains time‑barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness is jurisdictional; PCRA one‑year filing rule).
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (subsequent decisional law is not a "new fact" under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)).
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne decision not retroactive to reopen collateral attacks on sentences final before Alleyne).
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Lafler and Frye do not create a new constitutional right for Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) purposes).