Com. v. Doster, G.
363 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- In 1990 Glenn George Doster pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses involving nine minor boys and was sentenced; post-sentencing motions were denied and he did not pursue a direct appeal.
- Doster filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; the petition at issue is his fourth, filed September 17, 2015.
- Doster asserted his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and related Supreme Court decisions and relied on Commonwealth v. Wolfe to argue mandatory-minimum provisions (42 Pa.C.S. § 9718) were void.
- The trial court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the PCRA petition as untimely on January 14, 2016; Doster appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness jurisdictional rules for PCRA petitions and the three statutory exceptions that could overcome the one-year filing requirement.
- The Superior Court concluded Doster’s petition was untimely, his Alleyne-based claim did not meet the 60-day filing window for the new-right exception, and Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review per Pennsylvania precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court lawfully dismissed Doster's petition as untimely | Doster: his sentence is illegal under Alleyne/Wolfe and thus falls within the newly recognized constitutional-right exception to the PCRA time bar | Commonwealth: petition filed well outside PCRA time limits and exceptions do not apply | Court: dismissal affirmed — petition untimely and court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Alleyne-based challenge implicates sentence legality and is non-waivable | Doster: Alleyne renders mandatory-minimums illegal, so claim is substantive and non-waivable | Commonwealth: even if substantive, Alleyne claim must satisfy timeliness exceptions to proceed | Court: claim goes to legality but petitioner must meet PCRA timeliness exceptions; Doster failed to do so |
| Whether the new-right exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) applies | Doster: Alleyne announced a new right entitling retroactive relief | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not trigger retroactive relief on collateral review in Pennsylvania | Court: Alleyne-based claim must be filed within 60 days of Alleyne; Doster filed too late and Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review in PA |
| Whether Commonwealth v. Wolfe controls Doster’s relief | Doster: Wolfe supports invalidation of mandatory-minimum sentencing statutes and entitles him to relief | Commonwealth: Wolfe’s procedural posture differs; relief still subject to PCRA timeliness rules | Court: Wolfe does not rescue Doster from PCRA time bar; petition remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory penalties must be treated as elements)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court imposed illegal mandatory-minimums post-Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (some mandatory-minimum sentencing provisions infirm under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness of a PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 916 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2007) (grace period for first PCRA petitions where judgment became final before amendment effective date)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (60-day filing requirement for newly recognized constitutional-right exception)