Com. v. Brown, H.
3434 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Herbert Brown pled guilty in 2007 to possession with intent to deliver and was sentenced to 3–6 years imprisonment plus five years’ probation.
- Brown filed a first PCRA petition in 2008 which was denied after an evidentiary hearing; appeal followed.
- On December 12, 2014 Brown filed a second (successive) pro se PCRA petition; counsel (John P. Cotter) was appointed and submitted a Finley letter concluding the claims lacked merit.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 dismissal notice, Brown filed pro se responses, and on October 20, 2015 the court dismissed the petition and permitted counsel to withdraw under Finley.
- Brown appealed pro se, arguing his petition fit PCRA time‑bar exceptions based on Alleyne and related Pennsylvania decisions invalidating mandatory minimum statutes.
- The Superior Court held Brown’s 2014 petition was untimely and that Alleyne-based challenges do not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania, so the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition / jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 | Brown argued his petition fit a time‑bar exception (newly discovered evidence or a newly recognized constitutional right) so the court could reach the merits | The petition was filed well beyond the one‑year limit and Brown failed to establish a timely statutory exception | Petition is untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief |
| Applicability of Alleyne v. United States to Brown’s sentence | Brown argued Alleyne (and Pennsylvania decisions applying it) rendered the mandatory minimum statute unconstitutional and entitled him to collateral relief | Commonwealth maintained Alleyne‑based claims do not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania; Brown cannot invoke § 9545(b)(1)(iii) |
| Whether Brown’s claim is newly discovered evidence vs. retroactive right | Brown framed the claim as newly discovered evidence based on Alleyne and subsequent state decisions | Commonwealth and court treated the claim as asserting a newly recognized constitutional right (Alleyne) rather than newly discovered factual evidence | Court considered it under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) and rejected it as non‑retroactive |
| Validity of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes post‑Alleyne | Brown contended the statute under which he was sentenced was unconstitutional post‑Alleyne | Commonwealth relied on Pennsylvania precedent that Alleyne does not afford retroactive collateral relief | Even if the statute is now deemed unconstitutional, Alleyne’s rule is not retroactive on collateral review; no relief available |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (framework for appointed counsel to withdraw by submitting reasons why PCRA claims lack merit)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and cannot be waived)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (interpretation of § 9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity requirement)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 122 A.3d 388 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Pennsylvania Superior Court holding 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne not retroactive in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)