Com. v. Bellamy, W., Com. v. Bellamy, W. No. 2276 EDA 2016

In 1994 a jury convicted Wilbert Bellamy of multiple crimes (robbery, burglary, unlawfully carrying a firearm, conspiracy); he received an aggregate sentence of 47.5 to 95 years.
Bellamy’s initial direct appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief; after pro se PCRA relief and counsel delays, his direct appeal rights were reinstated twice and his judgment was ultimately affirmed.
Bellamy was not timely notified of the 2001 Superior Court decision and sought nunc pro tunc reinstatement to pursue further review; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later denied allowance of appeal in 2005.
On August 12, 2014 Bellamy filed a new PCRA petition claiming (inter alia) Alleyne-based illegality and that his aggregate sentence was excessive; counsel (Attorney Server) filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and moved to withdraw.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the amended PCRA petition on July 7, 2016; Bellamy appealed and counsel moved to withdraw, invoking the Turner/Finley procedure.
The Superior Court granted counsel’s withdrawal (finding procedural requirements met), held Bellamy’s 2014 PCRA petition untimely, rejected Alleyne retroactivity and discretionary-sentencing claims, and affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Bellamy's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal procedure	Attorney Server did adequate review, listed issues, and provided notice	PCRA court should ensure requirements met before permitting withdrawal	Court found counsel substantially complied with Turner/Finley and granted withdrawal
Whether the PCRA petition was timely (jurisdiction)	Petition filed Aug 12, 2014; seeks review despite finality in 2005	Judgment became final in 2005; petition is facially untimely absent an exception	Petition was untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to hear merits absent an exception
Whether Alleyne establishes a newly-recognized constitutional right permitting relief	Alleyne renders Bellamy’s sentence illegal; invokes §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception	Alleyne decided June 17, 2013; claim filed more than 60 days later and Alleyne not retroactive to final judgments	Alleyne claim rejected: untimely under §9545(b)(2) and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to final judgments
Whether the aggregate sentence is unreasonable / manifestly excessive	Sentence is excessive and should be vacated or reduced	Discretionary sentencing challenges are not cognizable under the PCRA	Court refused to address sentencing-discretion claim as not cognizable under the PCRA

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (new rule: any fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element for jury)
Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (Turner/Finley withdrawal procedure described)
Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (counsel must forward no‑merit letter and notice to petitioner)
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (finality date rules for PCRA timing)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in collateral appeals)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (companion to Turner on no‑merit briefs)
Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary sentencing claims are not cognizable on PCRA review)