Com. v. Ayala, H.
159 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Appellant Haen Peter Ayala pled guilty on August 16, 2013 to aggravated indecent assault of a person under 16 (18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(8)); six other charges were nolle prossed.
- He was sentenced on December 11, 2013 to 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment.
- Ayala filed a first PCRA petition in May 2014, which was dismissed on January 8, 2015.
- Ayala filed a second PCRA petition on August 24, 2016, claiming his sentence was illegal because it was imposed under a mandatory minimum statute later held unconstitutional.
- The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss and dismissed the second petition as untimely on December 19, 2016; Ayala appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ayala's second PCRA petition is timely or falls within a §9545(b)(1) exception | Ayala contends his petition is timely under the §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception because Wolfe announced the (alleged) new constitutional rule and he filed within 60 days of that decision | The Commonwealth/PCRA court argues the petition is untimely; Ayala’s claim does not meet any §9545 exception and he filed beyond the one-year limit | Held: Petition untimely; no §9545 exception applies; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Ayala was sentenced under a mandatory minimum that was invalidated by Wolfe/Alleyne | Ayala argues his sentence is illegal because mandatory minimums under 42 Pa.C.S. §9718 were declared unconstitutional (relying on Wolfe) | The court notes the crime Ayala pled to (§3125(a)(8)) did not carry a §9718 mandatory minimum; sentencing transcript shows no mandatory minimum was imposed | Held: No mandatory minimum applied to Ayala’s conviction; even if §9718 were implicated, Wolfe did not create a new retroactive right that would rescue an untimely petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (applied Alleyne to strike down §9718 as unconstitutional)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness rules bar Alleyne-based mandatory-minimum challenges in untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (legality-of-sentence claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA jurisdiction is governed by mandatory statutory time limits)