Com. v. Grover, D., Jr.
784 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- David L. Grover Jr. was convicted by a jury on January 12, 2011 of multiple sexual offenses for a sexual relationship with a 15‑year‑old; he received an aggregate sentence of 10 to 20 years on May 19, 2011.
- This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on April 9, 2012; Grover did not seek further review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Grover filed a timely first PCRA petition in October 2012; that petition was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal in November 2015.
- Grover filed a second, pro se PCRA petition on March 14, 2016—almost four years after his judgment became final (final on May 9, 2012).
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely on April 28, 2016; Grover appealed pro se, arguing (among other things) Alleyne-based attack on the mandatory minimum and challenges to sentencing/indictment jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely, that Grover failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception, and that Alleyne did not provide a basis for relief in this untimely collateral petition.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in not correcting an illegal sentence outside statutory limits | Grover argued his sentence violated statutory limits and/or the indictment and sought correction | Commonwealth argued court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits because petition was untimely | Court held petition was untimely and no exception was pleaded; court lacked jurisdiction to consider merits |
| Whether Alleyne requires relief from mandatory minimum under Section 9718 | Grover relied on Alleyne to challenge the mandatory minimum sentence | Commonwealth argued Alleyne does not afford relief in untimely PCRA petitions and is not retroactively applicable on collateral review | Court held Alleyne did not entitle Grover to relief in this untimely PCRA petition |
| Whether any timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 applies | Grover did not properly plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions | Commonwealth maintained petitioner bears burden to plead and prove an exception and Grover failed to do so | Court held no timeliness exception was pled or proven; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the PCRA court erred re: civil judgment without notice | Grover claimed a civil judgment was entered without trial/notice | Commonwealth did not substantively contest because jurisdictional timeliness barred review | Court declined to reach substantive civil‑judgment argument due to untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not invalidate mandatory minimum when raised in untimely PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (jury must find any fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence)