Com. v. Dacenzo, F., Jr.
Com. v. Dacenzo, F., Jr. No. 237 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- Appellant Frederico A. Dacenzo, Jr. pled guilty in 2009 to ten counts of child sexual abuse (possession of child pornography) and one count of criminal use of a communications facility; sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus 20 years’ probation and required to register under Megan’s Law. No direct appeal was filed.
- Dacenzo filed multiple post-conviction petitions. His first PCRA was dismissed as patently untimely; the Superior Court affirmed in 2013. A later RRRI-related filing was treated as a serial PCRA and dismissed in 2015 for untimeliness.
- On February 23, 2016 (prison-mailbox rule), Dacenzo filed his third PCRA petition claiming his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and relying on Montgomery for retroactivity; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely on January 18, 2017.
- Dacenzo raised several claims on appeal, including that Alleyne rendered his sentencing statutes unconstitutional, that juvenile records improperly affected his prior record score, denial of counsel, procedural errors in the Rule 907 notice/mail timing, and that the court ignored his objections to the intent-to-dismiss order.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition fell within a PCRA timeliness exception (newly recognized constitutional right under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)) and concluded the petition was untimely and not saved by Alleyne/Montgomery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dacenzo) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely under newly recognized constitutional right exception based on Alleyne and Montgomery | Petition was filed more than one year after judgment became final and does not meet any §9545 time-bar exception | Dismissed as untimely; petitioner did not prove an exception |
| Alleyne retroactivity | Alleyne renders mandatory-minimum sentencing statutes unconstitutional and should apply retroactively to appellant’s sentence | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; not a newly dictated substantive rule for cases final before Alleyne | Alleyne claim rejected as non-retroactive; does not excuse untimeliness |
| Reliance on Montgomery/Miller | Montgomery made Miller retroactive; Montgomery supports retroactive relief for Alleyne-type claims | Montgomery pertains to Miller (juvenile life without parole), not Alleyne; Montgomery does not make Alleyne retroactive | Montgomery does not save Alleyne claims; inapplicable to facts here |
| Procedural/notice errors (Rule 907 mailing, denial of counsel, ignored objections) | Court abused discretion in issuing/serving intent-to-dismiss and in denying counsel/ignoring objections | Procedural complaints do not overcome jurisdictional timeliness defect; many issues are discretionary sentencing matters not cognizable on PCRA | Court need not reach these claims because petition is jurisdictionally time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct.) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Sup. Ct.) (Miller retroactivity ruling applies on collateral review)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (Sup. Ct.) (Eighth Amendment bars mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicides)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne rule is not retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)