Com. v. Brown, D.
445 WDA 2018
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 11, 2018Background
- David A. Brown was convicted in 1992 of multiple offenses (including rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping) and is serving an aggregate 41 to 82 year sentence.
- He filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on June 5, 2017; this was a serial PCRA petition (fifth at two dockets, third at another).
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on March 1, 2018. Brown appealed pro se.
- Brown invoked the PCRA timeliness exception for "after-recognized" constitutional rights (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)), citing several U.S. Supreme Court cases including Buck, Martinez, Montgomery, and Alleyne.
- The PCRA court found Brown’s petition facially untimely (filed more than 25 years after his judgment became final) and that he did not meet any statutory timeliness exception; dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is illegal | Brown contends his sentence is illegal and claims newly recognized constitutional rules apply | Commonwealth/PCRA court: petition is untimely; no cognizable exception shown | Dismissed as untimely; no merits reached |
| Whether PCRA proceedings were improper | Brown alleges procedural errors in how PCRA was handled | PCRA court followed Rule 907 and provided notice; procedures proper | No error; dismissal proper |
| Whether Alleyne creates conflict requiring relief | Brown argues Alleyne and other decisions alter rights retroactively | Commonwealth: Alleyne (and cited cases) do not create a timely, retroactive exception for Brown | Court finds Alleyne and cited cases inapplicable to save untimely petition |
| Whether PCRA decision violates Constitution | Brown asserts constitutional conflict or violation | Commonwealth: timeliness jurisdictional; Brown failed to invoke/establish an exception | Petition untimely; constitutional argument not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holt, 175 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PCRA timeliness is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (statutory exceptions to PCRA timeliness explained)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sixty-day filing rule for after-recognized rights)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate obligation to develop arguments)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (U.S. 2017) (case cited by Brown but held not to create a timely, retroactive right for his petition)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel doctrine referenced)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (retroactivity of certain new rules discussed)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (Sentencing facts increasing mandatory minimums require jury; cited by Brown)