Com. v. Downward, J.
Com. v. Downward, J. No. 2010 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- From 2006–2008 Downward committed sexual offenses against three minors; he pled guilty in 2009 to multiple counts including rape of a child and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI).
- Original aggregate sentence (Nov. 25, 2009) was 12½ to 28 years, incorporating concurrent mandatory minimums under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.
- Downward did not file a direct appeal; he pursued multiple pro se PCRA petitions. The first amended PCRA led to partial relief and resentencing in 2012 (aggregate 12 to 26 years).
- Subsequent PCRA petitions were denied as untimely; appellate courts previously affirmed those denials.
- On Sept. 29, 2016 Downward filed a fourth PCRA petition asserting Alleyne-based invalidity of mandatory minimums (relying on Commonwealth v. Wolfe) and an equal protection claim; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Downward's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Downward’s Alleyne/Wolfe claim overcomes the PCRA time bar | Alleyne and Wolfe rendered the § 9718 mandatory minimums unconstitutional; Wolfe is a new constitutional right entitling him to collateral relief | Wolfe did not announce a new, retroactive constitutional right; Alleyne and its progeny do not apply retroactively on collateral review | Denied — petition untimely; Wolfe/Alleyne do not supply a retroactive new-right exception so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the PCRA petition met the 60-day filing requirement for a newly recognized right | Timely filed within 60 days of Wolfe-related authority | Even if timely under § 9545(b)(2), Wolfe did not create a retroactive right to overcome § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Denied — statutory exception not satisfied; substantive claim not retroactive |
| Availability of equal protection relief when PCRA time-bar not met | Equal protection entitles him to the same relief as timely filers | Time-bar is jurisdictional; equal protection cannot circumvent PCRA timeliness | Denied — court and appellate court lack jurisdiction to consider equal protection claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty is an element for jury, not judge)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (applied Alleyne to hold 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 unconstitutional on its face in direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (applied Alleyne to invalidate a mandatory minimum statute on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne claims do not overcome PCRA timeliness when raised in untimely petitions)