Com. v. Clifford, H., 1346 EDA 2016

Background

Appellant Homer R. Clifford Sr. pleaded guilty in April 2012 to multiple sexual offenses against his granddaughter and received an aggregate sentence of 10–20 years with mandatory minimums. The court also classified him as a sexually violent predator after a SOAB evaluation.
Appellant failed to file a timely post-sentence appeal; he sought nunc pro tunc relief which the trial court initially granted but later characterized his filing as a first PCRA petition and proceeded under PCRA procedures.
Appellant filed multiple PCRA petitions and related pro se filings between 2012 and 2016; prior petitions were dismissed as untimely and his prior appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief.
On February 8, 2016 he filed the petition at issue (treated as a PCRA petition), raising claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, deprivation of appellate rights, challenges to the SOAB proceeding, and constitutional challenges to mandatory minimum sentencing.
The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was filed well beyond the one-year PCRA time bar and no applicable statutory exception was established.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Jurisdiction of PCRA petition	Clifford argued his filings should be considered timely because of counsel errors and court actions that interfered with his direct appeal rights.	Commonwealth argued the petition was filed well after the one-year PCRA deadline and no time‑bar exception applies.	Court held petition untimely; no jurisdiction because Clifford did not plead/prove a statutory exception.
Alleged newly recognized constitutional right (Miller/Montgomery)	Clifford invoked Miller and Montgomery to challenge his sentence as unlawful and retroactive.	Commonwealth argued Miller/Montgomery concern juvenile life sentences and do not create a retroactive rule applicable to adult mandatory minimums here.	Court held Miller/Montgomery inapplicable to adult sentencing claims; they do not provide a retroactive basis for relief.
Alleyne-based challenge to mandatory minimums (and Newman/Wolfe)	Clifford argued his mandatory minimums were illegal under Alleyne and related PA cases (Newman, Wolfe).	Commonwealth argued Alleyne and related rulings have not been held retroactive by the PA Supreme Court, so they cannot overcome the PCRA time bar.	Court held Alleyne-based claims do implicate sentence legality but Alleyne does not apply retroactively per Commonwealth v. Washington; time‑bar exception not satisfied.
Ineffective assistance / deprivation of appellate rights	Clifford claimed counsel abandoned him, prevented timely direct appeal, and denied rights at SOAB proceedings.	Commonwealth maintained procedural default and that the petition is untimely; such claims must be timely pleaded and proven to invoke PCRA jurisdiction.	Court found these claims time‑barred because Clifford failed to plead a qualifying exception; merits not reached.

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life without parole for juveniles)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller rule applied retroactively to collateral review)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact increasing mandatory penalty is an element for the jury)
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne implications for Pennsylvania sentencing provisions)
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressing Alleyne issues and sentence legality)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentence legality may be raised sua sponte)