Com. v. Durham, J.
391 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Juban L. Durham pleaded guilty on July 9, 2013, to PWID and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 4–10 years for PWID. He did not file a direct appeal.
- Durham filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 22, 2015 (almost two years after sentencing), asserting his sentence was illegal under Alleyne v. United States.
- The PCRA petition alleged he was sentenced under the mandatory minimum statute 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(ii), but the Commonwealth had not given pre-sentencing notice and had stated at sentencing it was waiving mandatories.
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed to withdraw under Turner/Finley, concluding the petition lacked arguable merit because it was untimely and no exception applied.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition on January 27, 2016 for being untimely; Durham appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was time-barred and Durham failed to timely invoke the "new constitutional right" exception to the PCRA statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Durham’s Alleyne-based challenge makes his otherwise untimely PCRA petition timely under the PCRA’s newly recognized constitutional-right exception | Alleyne rendered the mandatory minimum statute unconstitutional, so Durham’s sentence is illegal and falls within the newly recognized-right exception | Petition is untimely: judgment became final Aug 9, 2013; Alleyne decided Jun 17, 2013; Durham waited until Apr 22, 2015 to file and did not file within 60 days of Alleyne | Petition is time-barred; Durham failed to plead the §9545(b)(1)(iii) elements or file within 60 days, so PCRA court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (interpreting §9545(b)(1)(iii) requires the right already to have been recognized as retroactive when petition filed)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence reviewable on PCRA but subject to statutory time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explaining PCRA filing deadlines and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (60-day period for newly recognized-right exception begins on date of underlying decision)