Com. v. Griggs, J.
61 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Appellant Joseph A. Griggs was convicted by jury of rape and aggravated assault; sentenced on June 3, 2010 to an aggregate 30–35 years plus probation; sentence affirmed on direct appeal in 2011.
- Appellant did not seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; judgment of sentence became final June 9, 2011.
- Appellant filed an initial pro se PCRA in 2012; counsel were appointed and later withdrew after filing a Turner/Finley no-merit letter; that petition was dismissed as untimely and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal in January 2015.
- On August 5, 2015 appellant filed a combined writ of habeas corpus and a second PCRA petition claiming his mandatory-minimum exposure was unconstitutional under Alleyne and Pennsylvania cases (e.g., Newman).
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely because it was filed well outside the one-year PCRA filing period and appellant failed to plead a timely exception; appellant responded after dismissal.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA is the exclusive post-conviction remedy (habeas subsumed), appellant’s claim is a legality-of-sentence/PCRA claim, and Alleyne-based relief is not retroactive on collateral review in Pennsylvania.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus preserves jurisdiction despite PCRA time-bar | Griggs argued habeas corpus claim under PA Constitution allows review of sentence legality outside PCRA time limits | Commonwealth argued PCRA subsumes habeas when PCRA provides potential relief; untimely PCRA controls | Court held PCRA is exclusive post-conviction remedy; habeas cannot evade PCRA time bar |
| Whether Alleyne (and Newman) create a new constitutional right excusing untimeliness under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Griggs claimed Alleyne (and state decisions) recognized a new constitutional rule that applies retroactively, so his late PCRA is timely under the statutory exception | Commonwealth argued Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and Griggs failed to file within the 60-day window after Alleyne | Court held Alleyne-based claim is untimely: petitioner missed 60-day requirement and Alleyne is not retroactive in PA on collateral review |
| Whether a legality-of-sentence challenge avoids the PCRA time bar | Griggs treated his claim as legality/proportionality/equal protection challenge to avoid PCRA constraints | Commonwealth maintained a legality-of-sentence challenge still must satisfy PCRA timeliness rules | Court held legality claims are cognizable under PCRA but nonetheless subject to its timeliness requirements |
| Whether precedent invites broader retroactivity or ‘good grounds’ to apply Alleyne/Newman | Griggs argued Pennsylvania cases and calls for broader retroactivity justify relief | Commonwealth relied on PA Supreme Court rulings precluding retroactive Alleyne relief | Court rejected broader retroactivity claim, citing Pennsylvania precedent denying retroactive Alleyne relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2004) (legality-of-sentence cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA subsumes writ of habeas corpus for claims the PCRA can address)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (no jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements for jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA is the sole means of post-conviction relief)