Com. v. Ford, H.
1337 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Appellant Harold Franklin Ford was convicted by a jury of robbery and conspiracy for a June 24, 2002 offense and sentenced June 30, 2003 to 25–50 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed by the Superior Court on July 12, 2004; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal April 19, 2005; no certiorari sought to U.S. Supreme Court.
- Judgment became final July 18, 2005; a PCRA petition therefore had to be filed by July 18, 2006 to be timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
- Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on March 7, 2016 (prison mailbox rule), more than nine years after the one-year deadline.
- Appellant argued he satisfied the PCRA’s new-right timeliness exception based on Montgomery v. Louisiana and Alleyne v. United States; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ford) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely | Ford argued he met the §9545(b)(1)(iii) new-right exception based on Montgomery and Alleyne, and filed within 60 days | Commonwealth argued the petition was untimely and no applicable statutory exception was pleaded or proven | Petition untimely; general jurisdictional bar applies because no valid exception proven |
| Whether Montgomery made a new constitutional right applicable to Ford | Ford claimed Montgomery (retroactivity of Miller) supported his claim and satisfied §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth noted Montgomery applies to juvenile LWOP and is inapplicable to an adult sentenced to 25–50 years | Montgomery inapplicable: Ford was an adult and not sentenced to mandatory LWOP |
| Whether Alleyne created a new retroactive right for collateral review | Ford invoked Alleyne to trigger §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth argued Alleyne was decided in 2013 and Ford did not file within 60 days; Pennsylvania courts have held Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review | Alleyne claim fails timeliness 60-day requirement and is not shown retroactive to collateral review in Pennsylvania |
| Whether legality-of-sentence claim can bypass PCRA time limits | Ford broadly alleged an illegal sentence | Commonwealth and court: legality claims still must meet PCRA time limits or an exception | Court held legality claim cannot be considered because no timeliness exception was proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (timeliness jurisdictional rule / review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (untimely PCRA petitions divest court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (burden to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (untimely PCRA petitions are jurisdictionally defective)
- Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (60-day rule runs from date of germane decision under §9545(b)(1)(iii))
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits)