Com. v. Haak, M.
Com. v. Haak, M. No. 510 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Matthew Scott Haak pleaded guilty in 2012 to sexual offenses against minors and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 8 to 20 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years’ probation; the court also designated him a sexually violent predator.
- Judgment of sentence became final on November 12, 2012, when the time to file a direct appeal expired.
- Haak filed a pro se PCRA petition on March 24, 2016, well beyond the one-year statutory filing period for PCRA claims.
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and was permitted to withdraw; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on February 27, 2017.
- Haak invoked the PCRA’s newly created constitutional right exception, relying on Alleyne, Miller, and Montgomery to excuse untimeliness.
- The trial court and this Court held the petition time‑barred because the cited Supreme Court decisions either do not apply to Haak’s sentence facts (Miller/Montgomery) or have not been held retroactive on collateral review (Alleyne), so the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Haak's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely under the "new constitutional right" exception based on recent Supreme Court decisions | Petition is untimely; Haak did not file within one year or satisfy a timeliness exception | PCRA petition is untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it |
| Applicability of Alleyne to excuse timeliness | Alleyne announces a new constitutional rule that should permit relief | Alleyne has not been held retroactive on collateral review and Haak filed beyond 60 days of Alleyne | Alleyne cannot be used to satisfy the PCRA exception (not held retroactive) |
| Applicability of Miller/Montgomery | Miller/Montgomery announce retroactive rules that should apply | Haak was an adult and did not receive a mandatory LWOP sentence; Miller/Montgomery address juvenile mandatory LWOP only | Miller/Montgomery do not apply because Haak was not a juvenile and did not receive LWOP; they do not excuse timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by jury)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (holding Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating Alleyne has not been held retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to sentences final before Alleyne)