Com. v. Figueroa-Novoa, M.
430 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Miguel Figueroa-Novoa was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and carrying a firearm without a license; sentenced to life imprisonment plus consecutive and concurrent terms.
- Post-conviction process: direct appeal affirmed; PA Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; Appellant filed a PCRA petition in June 2015; counsel filed Turner/Finley letter and withdrew; PCRA petition denied February 6, 2017; appeal followed.
- Appellant raised multiple claims pro se, including challenges to admission of blood/urine evidence, confrontation/cross-examination issues, counsel withdrawal conflict, and that his life sentence violated Alleyne/Hopkins principles.
- The PCRA court and this Superior Court panel found several claims waived for procedural reasons (failure to include in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) or failure to raise in PCRA petition).
- The court reviewed only the non-waived legality-of-sentence claim: whether the mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder violated Alleyne/Hopkins.
- Court concluded Section 1102(a)(1) prescribes life or death based on a jury’s conviction of first-degree murder, not on a separate sentencing factor, so Alleyne/Hopkins do not apply and the sentence is lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of life sentence under Alleyne/Hopkins | Figueroa-Novoa: mandatory life sentence violates Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments under Alleyne and Hopkins; rule is retroactive | Commonwealth: first-degree murder conviction itself authorizes life sentence; no separate factfinding triggers a mandatory minimum | Court: Alleyne/Hopkins inapplicable; conviction verdict alone supports life sentence; claim denied |
| Admission/testing of blood and urine evidence | Figueroa-Novoa: blood/urine were tainted and improperly tested/admitted | Commonwealth: (implicit) evidence admissible / claim not preserved | Court: Claim waived for not being raised in PCRA petition or adequately in 1925(b) |
| Confrontation/cross-examination of Commonwealth expert | Figueroa-Novoa: denial of effective cross-examination violated Confrontation Clause | Commonwealth: (implicit) issue waived | Court: Claim waived for failure to include in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) |
| Court-appointed counsel reassignment after Turner/Finley letter | Figueroa-Novoa: withdrawal and letter created conflict and error | Commonwealth: (implicit) procedural regularity of counsel withdrawal | Court: Claim waived for not being preserved in 1925(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (PA statute imposing mandatory minimum linked to sentencing fact found unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (issues not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 960 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 2008) (challenge to mandatory minimum implicates legality of sentence and is non-waivable)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (PCRA claim not raised in petition cannot be asserted first on appeal)