Com. v. Custer, D.
Com. v. Custer, D. No. 1663 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Dean Leroy Custer was convicted in 2004 of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to 30–60 years’ imprisonment plus 60 years’ probation; direct review concluded in 2006.
- Custer filed multiple PCRA petitions; the third petition was filed on June 2, 2016, raising an Alleyne challenge to his sentence.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/no‑merit letter; the court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and allowed counsel to withdraw.
- Custer requested a competency hearing and filed a pro se amended petition invoking Alleyne; the PCRA court denied the competency request and dismissed the petition as untimely on September 7, 2016.
- Custer filed a notice of appeal with an ambiguous mailing/date (certificate says mailed Oct 7, 2016; signature dated Oct 8, 2016); the Superior Court considered jurisdiction and timeliness of the PCRA petition itself.
Issues
| Issue | Custer's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court has jurisdiction over Custer’s appeal | Notice of appeal was timely under prisoner mailbox rule (mailed Oct 7) | Notice untimely (signed Oct 8; 30‑day rule expired Oct 7) | Jurisdiction question unnecessary to resolve because PCRA petition was plainly untimely on its face |
| Whether Custer’s 2016 PCRA petition was timely | Alleyne creates newly recognized constitutional right excusing the untimeliness | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; petition is time‑barred | Petition is untimely; Alleyne exception inapplicable because Washington holds Alleyne not retroactive |
| Whether Alleyne invalidates Custer’s sentence to allow PCRA relief | Alleyne requires any fact increasing penalty be found by jury, so mandatory minimums are unconstitutional | Even if Alleyne applies generally, it does not provide retroactive relief on collateral review for Custer | Alleyne‑based claim cannot save untimely petition; PCRA time limits control |
| Whether a remand for evidentiary timeliness hearing was required | Ambiguous filing date justified remand to determine mailbox date | No remand needed because petition is facially untimely regardless of the appeal filing date | No remand; dismissal affirmed as untimely filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase penalty are elements for jury to find)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa.Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule for pro se incarcerated appellants)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (invalidating certain mandatory minimum schemes under Alleyne principles)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa.Super. 2015) (applying Alleyne to invalidate mandatory sentencing provisions)