Com. v. Cruz-Ventura, F., 73 MDA 2017

Felimon Cruz-Ventura was convicted in 2001 of multiple sexual offenses against a five-year-old he babysat, and sentenced to an aggregate term of 31.5 to 63 years; judgment of sentence was affirmed in 2004.
He filed multiple PCRA petitions (first in 2004) raising newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance claims tied to herpes-testing; earlier petitions were dismissed or withdrawn after testing showed he carried the virus.
Several subsequent PCRA petitions were dismissed as untimely or previously litigated; appeals were unsuccessful or procedural defaults applied.
The instant (fifth) PCRA petition was filed November 22, 2016, asserting his sentence was illegal in light of post-Alleyne decisions (citing Commonwealth v. Davis and Monroe Young orders) and alleging trial/counsel error.
The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely under the PCRA one-year time bar; the court found the asserted new constitutional right exception (Alleyne-related) did not apply retroactively and the petition was not filed within 60 days of any qualifying decision.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that Alleyne-based holdings are not retroactive on collateral review per Commonwealth v. Washington; Wolfe (recognizing related error on direct appeal) does not mandate retroactive relief on PCRA review.

Issue	Cruz-Ventura's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Timeliness of PCRA petition	Petition timely because filed within 60 days of September 2016 dispositions (Davis/Young) that invalidated mandatory minimums	Petition is untimely; Davis/Young orders do not recognize a new, retroactive constitutional right for PCRA purposes	Petition untimely; no applicable PCRA exception (one-year time bar applies)
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Prior counsel failed to investigate/test victim's mother and pursue exculpatory evidence	IAC claims were previously litigated or barred by timeliness; no jurisdiction due to untimeliness	Court did not reach merits because petition was time-barred
Legality of sentence	Mandatory-minimum components of sentence are unconstitutional post-Alleyne/Wolfe	Alleyne-based rule not retroactive on collateral review; Wolfe addressed direct appeals and does not create retroactive PCRA relief	Sentence challenge rejected as untimely; Alleyne/Wolfe do not entitle petitioner to collateral relief under PCRA

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (addressed Alleyne-related infirmity in IDSI statute on direct appeal)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne-based rules are not retroactive on collateral review)