Com. v. Garcia, J.
Com. v. Garcia, J. No. 316 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Jose Miguel Garcia, who was 16 at the time of the offense, pled guilty in 2003 to third-degree murder and related offenses and received a 20–40 year sentence.
- Garcia did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on December 17, 2003.
- In March 2016 Garcia filed a pro se PCRA petition seeking relief based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Miller and Montgomery) and alleging his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and related Pennsylvania precedent.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under the PCRA one-year jurisdictional rule; Garcia appealed.
- The trial court concluded Garcia’s petition was filed more than eleven years after the one-year deadline and did not satisfy any statutory exception to the time bar.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania and thus Garcia’s untimely petition could not be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia's sentence is illegal because mandatory-minimum facts must be found by a jury under Alleyne | Alleyne and related cases render his sentence illegal because facts that increase mandatory penalties are elements that require jury finding | PCRA/ Commonwealth: Even if Alleyne states a new rule, it does not provide relief on collateral review because it is not retroactive under Pennsylvania law | Held for Commonwealth: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; petition untimely and jurisdictionally barred |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery entitle Garcia to relief as a juvenile offender | Garcia cites Miller/Montgomery to challenge juvenile sentencing procedures and seek withdrawal of plea | Commonwealth: Miller applies to life-without-parole schemes; Garcia was not sentenced to life without parole, so Miller/Montgomery do not help him | Held for Commonwealth: Miller/Montgomery claim unavailable in these facts; petition untimely |
| Whether procedural noncompliance (rules or statutes) bars review of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 application | Garcia contends procedural failures do not prevent review of mandatory-sentence application | Commonwealth: Even illegal-sentence claims must be timely presented in a PCRA; procedural arguments do not avoid the time bar | Held for Commonwealth: Timeliness requirement controls; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether PCRA exceptions (new constitutional right) apply allowing late filing | Garcia argues Montgomery (and Miller) created a retroactive rule or Alleyne is a new right warranting the 60-day exception | Commonwealth cites Pennsylvania precedent holding Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review and Washington which forecloses relief | Held for Commonwealth: Alleyne held not retroactive in Pennsylvania (Washington); PCRA exceptions not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders without individualized consideration)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that must be given retroactive effect)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum sentence are elements that must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne applies only on direct appeal when Alleyne was issued)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (timeliness is jurisdictional; PCRA courts review for legal error and record support)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 744 A.2d 1284 (Pa. 2000) (addressing procedural noncompliance and appellate review)