Com. v. Broderick, P.
994 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Patrick S. Broderick was convicted after a non-jury trial of IDSI, conspiracy to commit IDSI, and burglary for an April 15, 2007 attack; aggregate sentence was 6–12 years plus five years’ probation.
- Broderick filed multiple post-conviction petitions: an initial timely PCRA (denied and affirmed), a habeas petition treated as a second PCRA (dismissed as untimely), and a third PCRA raising Alleyne (dismissed as untimely and affirmed).
- He filed a fourth PCRA petition asserting Alleyne and citing Commonwealth v. Ciccone; the PCRA court gave notice and dismissed it as untimely on January 30, 2017.
- The PCRA court found Alleyne (even if applicable) did not help because Broderick’s sentence did not involve a mandatory minimum or exceed the statutory maximum; the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction due to the PCRA time bar.
- Broderick appealed; the Superior Court treated the appeal as timely despite a docketing date issue and affirmed dismissal, holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and that illegal-sentence claims remain subject to the PCRA timeliness rules.
Issues
| Issue | Broderick's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fourth PCRA petition was timely or excepted from the PCRA time bar | Alleyne or Vasquez make illegal-sentence claims non-waivable and not subject to PCRA time limits | Petition is facially untimely and Alleyne does not render it timely; Vasquez does not avoid PCRA timeliness | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed it |
| Whether Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review to permit relief | Alleyne-based attack on sentence should allow late filing | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review (citing Washington) |
| Whether Broderick’s sentence implicated Alleyne’s mandatory-minimum rule | Alleyne entitles him to relief | His sentence did not include a mandatory minimum or exceed statutory maximum, so Alleyne inapplicable | Alleyne inapplicable because no mandatory-minimum sentencing issue |
| Whether an illegal-sentence claim can bypass statutory PCRA exceptions per Vasquez | Vasquez makes illegality claims immune from timeliness bars | Vasquez does not excuse filing delays; legality claims still must meet PCRA time rules | Vasquez does not remove PCRA time requirements; claim waived when raised first on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time limits apply even to legality-of-sentence claims absent an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 744 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000) (addresses preservation of legality claims; does not supplant PCRA timeliness rules)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal and no-merit letter)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for no-merit letters and counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (challenge to legality of sentence must be presented in a timely PCRA petition)