Com. v. Hall, T.
3075 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Terry Hall pleaded guilty to burglary on March 7, 2014, pursuant to a negotiated sentence of 7 to 14 years; he did not file a direct appeal or withdraw the plea.
- Hall’s judgment of sentence became final on April 7, 2014 (30-day appeal period expired).
- Hall filed a pro se PCRA petition on November 17, 2015 (outside the one-year statutory window).
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Hall responded, and the petition was dismissed on August 22, 2016.
- Hall argued the petition was timely under each of the three PCRA exceptions based on alleged after-discovered facts (knowledge from a 2015 seminar and news article), alleged governmental interference/misleading by the prosecutor, and a newly recognized constitutional right (Alleyne-related principles affecting mandatory minimums and "three-strike" sentencing).
- The PCRA court held it lacked jurisdiction because Hall’s petition was untimely and none of the statutory exceptions applied; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition filed within exceptions to one-year rule because Hall only learned relevant law in Sept. 2015 | Judgment final April 7, 2014; petition filed Nov. 17, 2015, so untimely unless exception proven | Petition untimely; no jurisdiction to consider merits |
| After-discovered fact exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Seminar/news alerted Hall to Alleyne/Armstrong implications; counsel’s bad advice is a newly discovered fact | Judicial decisions and counsel ineffectiveness are not "facts" for this exception | Exception not satisfied; counsel error/judicial decisions don't constitute newly discovered facts |
| Governmental interference exception (§9545(b)(1)(i)) | Prosecutor misled Hall that he would be prosecuted as a third-strike offender, inducing guilty plea | Alleyne does not affect prior convictions; Hall and counsel were aware of the prior-conviction sentencing issue | No governmental interference shown; exception fails |
| New constitutional right exception (§9545(b)(1)(iii)) | Alleyne and Armstrong establish a new right making Hall's sentence illegal and retroactively applicable | Alleyne doesn’t apply to prior convictions; Alleyne was decided before Hall’s plea and has not been held retroactive to collateral review | Exception inapplicable; Alleyne does not render Hall’s sentence illegal on collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements for jury determination)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing Alleyne implications for mandatory sentencing statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (trial counsel ineffectiveness is not an "after-discovered fact" under §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (same principle regarding after-discovered facts)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (judicial decisions are not "facts" for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial decision does not qualify as newly-discovered fact)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne does not alter the status of prior convictions as sentencing factors)