Com. v. Ferguson, P.
203 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 23, 2016Background
- Paul A. Ferguson, aged 15 at the time, participated in a home invasion and assaults; convicted of multiple offenses including attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and burglary.
- Original aggregate sentence was 36 to 72 years; after partial reversal and resentencing the aggregate term became 30 to 60 years.
- Ferguson pursued direct appeals and a first PCRA petition (filed 2001) that was dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
- He filed a second PCRA petition on December 8, 2014, which the Dauphin County PCRA court dismissed on October 14, 2015.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was timely or whether any statutory exceptions applied, and ultimately affirmed the dismissal for untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Ferguson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition is timely despite being filed more than one year after final judgment | Time-bar inapplicable because sentence is illegal under Apprendi/Alleyne | PCRA time-bar is jurisdictional; petition is facially untimely and exceptions not met | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether Apprendi/Alleyne render his sentence illegal and thus permit collateral review | Apprendi/Alleyne apply to his case and overcome timeliness bar | Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply retroactively on collateral review | Apprendi/Alleyne do not revive untimely petitions in collateral proceedings |
| Whether Miller (youth-sentencing Eighth Amendment rule) makes the petition timely or supplies a claim | Miller should allow relief because he was a juvenile at the time of offense | Miller does not apply because Ferguson was not sentenced to mandatory life without parole | Miller is inapplicable; Ferguson was not sentenced to life without parole, so no Miller claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standards for PCRA review of factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness considered separate from merits)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (legality of sentence claim still must meet PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness requirements and exceptions under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (jury must find any fact triggering a mandatory minimum)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)