Com. v. Copeland, L.
Com. v. Copeland, L. No. 1297 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Appellant Linwood Chester Copeland pleaded guilty on June 10, 2013 to indecent assault (victim <13), unlawful contact with a minor, and corruption of minors; sentenced per plea to 5–10 years’ imprisonment plus 2 years’ probation.
- Copeland did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on July 10, 2013.
- He timely filed a first pro se PCRA petition on December 4, 2013; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and withdrew; the court denied relief and this Court affirmed on October 23, 2014.
- Copeland filed a second pro se PCRA petition on April 27, 2016, invoking Alleyne as a basis to challenge his sentence.
- The trial court issued Rule 907 notice, denied relief on July 19, 2016, and Copeland appealed; he argued the Alleyne decision created a new constitutional right that excuses the PCRA time‑bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Copeland’s second PCRA petition is timely or falls within the new‑constitutional‑right exception (Alleyne) to the PCRA time‑bar | Alleyne established a new constitutional rule invalidating the mandatory minimum sentencing provision under which he was sentenced, so his late petition is timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | The petition is untimely; judgment became final July 10, 2013 and the 2016 petition is outside the one‑year window; Alleyne does not help because no mandatory minimum was imposed here | Petition is untimely; Alleyne inapplicable because no mandatory minimum sentence was imposed; PCRA denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no‑merit letter procedure for PCRA counsel)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (finding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury and found beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Copeland, 108 A.3d 121 (Pa. Super. 2014) (affirming denial of Copeland’s first PCRA petition)