Com. v. Coombs, W.
1102 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Wayne Coombs was convicted by a jury in 2001 of multiple robberies and related crimes and was sentenced in 2002 to an aggregate 59 to 160 years’ imprisonment.
- Direct appeal was unsuccessful; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2003, and his judgment of sentence became final on March 10, 2004.
- Coombs filed two earlier PCRA petitions (years earlier) that were denied; he did not appeal those denials.
- On October 7, 2016, Coombs filed a third, pro se PCRA petition asserting his mandatory-minimum sentence is illegal under Alleyne v. United States.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and, after no response from Coombs, dismissed the petition on March 3, 2017 as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- Coombs appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was facially untimely and Coombs failed to invoke a statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coombs) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coombs’ Alleyne-based claim renders his PCRA petition timely | Alleyne (and related Pennsylvania rulings) make the mandatory-minimum element an element requiring jury finding; thus his sentence is illegal and reviewable via PCRA | Coombs’ petition was filed more than one year after his judgment became final; Alleyne does not apply retroactively under Pennsylvania law, so timeliness exception not met | Petition untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether Vasquez or § 9542 allows review despite procedural defects/timeliness | Vasquez and § 9542 mean illegal-sentence claims are not waivable and fall squarely within PCRA relief | Vasquez addressed direct appeal context and does not excuse statutory PCRA time limits; § 9542 does not override § 9545(b) filing deadlines | Vasquez/§ 9542 do not excuse failure to meet PCRA timeliness requirements |
| Whether any Alleyne progeny created a new retroactive constitutional right under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Recent Pennsylvania decisions applying Alleyne create a new constitutional right supporting retroactive relief | Pennsylvania Supreme Court held Alleyne is not retroactive; later state decisions applied Alleyne but did not announce a new, retroactive right for § 9545 purposes | Alleyne and subsequent state cases do not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by not addressing Coombs’ arguments in detail | Coombs argued the court failed to meaningfully address his claims and statutory arguments | Court correctly dismissed on timeliness grounds, which are jurisdictional, so detailed merits analysis was unnecessary | No error; dismissal on timeliness was appropriate and dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 744 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000) (illegal-sentence claims are not waivable and trial courts retain jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time limits are mandatory; petitioner must meet them before merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness implicates jurisdiction and cannot be ignored)