Com. v. Day, L.
32 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Appellant Lonnie Day, Jr. was convicted by jury of second‑degree murder, conspiracy, and PIC; sentenced to life on July 27, 1983; judgment of sentence became final September 5, 1985.
- Day is a serial filer of PCRA petitions; his first PCRA was filed in 1986 and multiple subsequent petitions were denied as untimely.
- Day filed his fifth PCRA petition on February 11, 2016, invoking Alleyne and arguing retroactivity via Montgomery.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss as untimely; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition. Day appealed.
- The Superior Court considered only timeliness/jurisdiction under the PCRA; it found the petition was patently untimely and that Day failed to plead a valid § 9545(b)(1) exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Day’s 2016 PCRA petition is timely or falls within a statutory exception | Day argued Alleyne error should apply retroactively through Montgomery, permitting collateral relief | Commonwealth argued petition is untimely and no § 9545(b)(1) exception applies | Petition is untimely; Day failed to plead a viable time‑bar exception, so court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Montgomery renders Alleyne retroactive to collateral review | Day claimed Montgomery supports retroactive application of Alleyne | Commonwealth and precedent show Montgomery is limited to juveniles and does not make Alleyne retroactive | Montgomery does not render Alleyne retroactive for non‑juveniles; Day is not a juvenile, so claim fails |
| Whether a legality‑of‑sentence challenge escapes the PCRA time bar | Day relied on Vasquez to argue legality challenges are not time‑barred | Commonwealth asserted Vasquez was a direct‑appeal context and collateral review timeliness still governs | Legality claims on collateral review must still satisfy PCRA timeliness/exceptions; absent exception, court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether the Superior Court may address merits despite untimeliness | Day sought review of sentence legality on appeal | Commonwealth maintained courts lack jurisdiction to reach merits of untimely PCRA petitions | Court refused to reach merits because the PCRA time bar is jurisdictional and no exception was pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (holding that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to a jury)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (holding Miller retroactive to collateral review for juvenile offenders)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; legality claims in untimely petitions cannot be reviewed without an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness framework and burden on petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (time‑bar exceptions must be pled in the petition)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 744 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000) (context: direct appeal discussing legality of sentence)