Com. v. Banks, R.
Com. v. Banks, R. No. 1527 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 15, 2017Background
- Riley Banks was sentenced on October 26, 2006 to an aggregate 31–62 years’ imprisonment for multiple sexual offenses.
- He appealed; the Superior Court affirmed on January 3, 2008; he did not seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Banks filed a second pro se PCRA petition on March 22, 2013 asserting his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and challenging Washington as wrongly decided.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, Banks responded, and the court dismissed the petition on May 9, 2016 as untimely.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness (jurisdictional) and whether any § 9545(b)(1) exception applied; it affirmed dismissal because Banks failed to prove a retroactivity exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legality of sentence may be raised for first time in post-conviction collateral review | Banks argued his sentence is illegal under Alleyne and thus cognizable on collateral review | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely and no timeliness exception applied | Petition untimely; legality claim must be timely raised under PCRA; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Alleyne created a new constitutional right that applies retroactively | Banks contended Alleyne invalidated his sentencing and should apply retroactively to his case | Commonwealth relied on Washington holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Court held Banks did not prove Alleyne was held retroactive by CA or PA Supreme Court; timeliness exception not met |
| Whether challenges to Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent (Washington) can save timeliness | Banks argued Washington was wrongly decided and thus should not bar relief | Commonwealth argued deviation from Washington does not create retroactivity for purposes of § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Court declined to overrule Washington; petitioner must show the right was recognized and held retroactive by the relevant high court |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to PCRA time limits | Banks implicitly sought relief despite delay | Commonwealth asserted PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling | Court reiterated PCRA limits are jurisdictional and equitable tolling does not apply; burden on petitioner to prove exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury or admitted)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and apply to all claims)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpreting § 9545(b)(1)(iii) and requiring the right to have been held retroactive at petition time)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (one-year filing rule for PCRA petitions)