Com. v. Daddario, R.
889 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- Richard A. Daddario was convicted in 2006 of multiple sexual-offense counts and was later resentenced on July 2, 2010, after a successful first PCRA petition; he did not appeal the resentencing.
- His judgment of sentence became final on August 1, 2010 (30 days after resentencing); a timely PCRA petition therefore had to be filed by August 1, 2011.
- Daddario filed a second PCRA petition in July 2014, which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed that dismissal in June 2015.
- On March 4, 2016, Daddario filed the instant (third) PCRA petition; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 3, 2016.
- Daddario appealed pro se, arguing (1) his confinement lacked statutory authorization and violated constitutional rights and (2) Alleyne should be applied retroactively in light of Montgomery.
- The Superior Court considered only timeliness and the timeliness-exception arguments, and affirmed the dismissal on the ground the petition was untimely and no exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Daddario argued his claim should be considered despite untimeliness because Alleyne is retroactive under Montgomery | Commonwealth argued petition was filed well after the one-year deadline and no timeliness exception applies | Petition untimely; judgment final Aug 1, 2010; PCRA deadline Aug 1, 2011; petition filed Mar 4, 2016 — dismissed |
| Applicability of retroactivity exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(iii)) | Daddario contended Montgomery’s retroactivity holding for Miller makes Alleyne retroactive to collateral review | Commonwealth: Montgomery addressed Miller only; neither U.S. Supreme Court nor PA Supreme Court held Alleyne retroactive | Court held Alleyne is not shown to be retroactive by Montgomery; petitioner failed to prove § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception |
| Availability of other timeliness exceptions (government interference or newly discovered facts) | Implied none asserted beyond Alleyne/Montgomery theory | Commonwealth: no applicable exception proven | Court found no applicable exception; burden on petitioner not met |
| Scope of review (jurisdiction) | N/A (petitioner sought merits) | Commonwealth: court must enforce PCRA timeliness as jurisdictional | Court applied de novo review of timeliness and enforced the jurisdictional time bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (held Miller rule is substantive and retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element requiring jury finding)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (held mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral-review cases)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses PCRA timeliness and finality rules)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)