Com. v. Crise, J.
Com. v. Crise, J. No. 1183 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- James W. Crise was convicted in 2009 of multiple crimes including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and received an aggregate sentence of 20 to 55 years.
- His direct appeals were denied and his judgment of sentence became final in 2011 after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Crise filed multiple PCRA petitions; the first two yielded no relief.
- On May 4, 2016, Crise filed the PCRA petition at issue, arguing his sentence was illegal under Commonwealth v. Wolfe (challenging the mandatory minimum in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 in light of Alleyne) and seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- The PCRA court issued notice to dismiss the petition as untimely; after Crise responded, the court dismissed the petition on July 21, 2016 for lack of timeliness.
- Crise appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Crise failed to invoke or prove any statutory timeliness exception required for collateral relief, depriving the courts of jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crise) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crise's 2016 PCRA petition was timely or fits a timeliness exception | Wolfe renders § 9718 unconstitutional under Alleyne, so Crise’s sentence is illegal and the claim is timely via a newly-recognized constitutional rule | Petition is facially untimely (judgment final 2011); Crise did not plead or prove any timeliness exception | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits — dismissed |
| Whether Wolfe should be applied retroactively on collateral review | Wolfe applied Alleyne to § 9718; thus its holding should apply retroactively to invalidate mandatory minimum | Wolfe did not announce a new constitutional right; Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review per Washington | Wolfe does not provide a retroactive new constitutional right sufficient to overcome PCRA timeliness bar |
| Whether newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial | Crise asserted newly discovered evidence supports a new trial | Crise failed to meet PCRA timeliness requirements and did not establish the exceptions | Claim not considered due to untimeliness/jurisdictional bar |
| Whether the Superior Court should reach the merits despite procedural defects | Crise focused on merits in brief and urged retroactivity of Wolfe | Court requires petitioner to plead and prove timeliness exception; will not develop arguments for appellant | Court refused to consider merits absent jurisdiction; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (applied Alleyne to hold § 9718 mandatory minimum unconstitutional)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding 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 on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miner, 44 A.3d 684 (Pa. Super. 2012) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove PCRA timeliness exceptions)