Com. v. Ferrara, D.
1765 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- In 2006 a jury convicted David E. Ferrara of multiple sexual offenses against a 13‑year‑old; aggregate sentence was 20 to 40 years and he was classified a sexually violent predator.
- Direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review were denied; Ferrara’s judgment of sentence became final on December 30, 2009.
- Ferrara filed multiple PCRA petitions: first (timely) and second (untimely; dismissed), and this third petition filed August 19, 2015.
- In the third PCRA petition Ferrara argued his sentences were illegal under Alleyne v. United States and Commonwealth v. Hopkins.
- The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1), ruling Alleyne/Hopkins did not provide a basis for relief because Ferrara did not receive mandatory minimums and Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ferrara) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third PCRA petition is timely | Alleyne and Hopkins are newly discovered facts that trigger the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception and permit collateral review | Petition is filed well after the one‑year rule; Alleyne/Hopkins do not make the petition timely and judicial decisions are not "facts" for the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception | Petition is untimely; no timeliness exception applies |
| Whether Alleyne invalidates Ferrara’s sentence | Alleyne (and Hopkins) rendered mandatory minimums unconstitutional, so his sentence is illegal | Trial court did not impose mandatory minimums; court imposed maximum sentences, so Alleyne is inapplicable | Alleyne affords no relief because no mandatory minimum was imposed |
| Whether judicial decisions (Alleyne/Hopkins) qualify as a "fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Alleyne/Hopkins are newly discovered and therefore satisfy the exception | Judicial opinions are not "facts" and thus cannot trigger the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) timeliness exception | Judicial decisions are not "facts"; exception not satisfied |
| Whether Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review | Alleyne announces a new constitutional rule that should be applied retroactively to cases like Ferrara’s | Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor PA Supreme Court has held Alleyne retroactive; PA Supreme Court held Alleyne non‑retroactive on collateral review | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory penalty must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (applied Alleyne to strike a mandatory minimum in controlled‑substance statute)
- Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne inapplicable where no mandatory minimum was imposed)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (judicial opinions are not "facts" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2011) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively on collateral review only when highest courts so hold)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials)