Com. v. Colon, J.
3683 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- On Feb. 19, 2003, a gang-related shootout in Philadelphia resulted in one death (Angel Rodriguez) and injuries to another (Earnest Barker); Colon retrieved an AK-47 and fired after being urged to "shoot."
- Colon and a co-defendant were tried jointly; Colon was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, VUFA violations, PIC, REAP, and aggravated assault and sentenced to 20–40 years (sentencing reimposed Mar. 9, 2006).
- Colon filed a timely first PCRA petition (2006) that was denied and affirmed on appeal; he filed a second pro se PCRA petition on June 18, 2015 challenging the legality of his sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712(a).
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely under the one-year filing rule (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)); Colon’s judgment of sentence was final April 10, 2006, so a timely petition was due by April 10, 2007.
- Colon argued that decisions declaring mandatory-minimum provisions (Section 9712 or related provisions) unconstitutional entitled him to relief; the PCRA court found he failed to plead or prove any of the statutory timeliness exceptions, including the 60-day filing requirement for newly recognized rights.
- The Superior Court affirmed: because Colon’s petition was untimely and no exception applied (and Alleyne does not apply retroactively), the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colon’s second PCRA petition is timely | Colon asserted his sentence is illegal due to the unconstitutionality of §9712 and related case law, entitling him to relief | Commonwealth contended the petition was untimely (filed 2015), and Colon failed to plead a statutory exception within 60 days | Petition untimely; Colon failed to prove any §9545(b)(1) exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a court may reach the merits of an illegal-sentence claim despite PCRA time bars | Colon argued illegality of sentence removes the jurisdictional time bar | Commonwealth argued illegality claims are still subject to PCRA timeliness rules | Illegality claims do not override PCRA jurisdictional deadlines; time bar controls |
| Whether Alleyne (and related post-conviction rule changes) applies retroactively to final sentences | Colon relied on Alleyne and post-Alleyne state decisions to assert a newly recognized constitutional right | Commonwealth maintained Alleyne has not been held retroactive by PA or US Supreme Court | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review; cannot excuse timeliness failure |
| Whether recent state decisions (Newman/Valentine/Miller) create a retroactive right for §9712 challenges | Colon relied on state Superior Court decisions attacking mandatory-minimum provisions | Commonwealth argued those decisions do not create a retroactive right under PCRA §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Superior Court held those state decisions do not overcome the PCRA time bar; Colon’s petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. Commonwealth, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressed constitutionality of Section 9712.1)
- Valentine v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressed Section 9712(a) mandatory-minimum issues)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (held Alleyne was not announced as retroactive for collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (held that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)