Com. v. Hammond, K.
115 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- In 2009 Hammond was arrested for a robbery and related offenses; convicted by jury in 2011 and sentenced to 9.5 to 28 years. Appeals were exhausted and judgment of sentence became final in 2013.
- Hammond filed multiple PCRA petitions earlier; a prior PCRA was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal in 2014.
- On April 28, 2016 Hammond filed a pro se PCRA petition raising: (1) Alleyne error rendering his sentence illegal; (2) Brady violation based on discovery that the property was condemned shortly after his arrest; and (3) trial counsel ineffectiveness.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice concluding the 2016 petition was untimely and that Alleyne does not provide a timeliness exception; Hammond did not respond to the notice. The court dismissed the petition on December 6, 2016 for lack of jurisdiction.
- Hammond appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was facially untimely, Hammond failed to plead a timeliness exception, Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review, and Hammond failed to show due diligence for the newly discovered-facts exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hammond) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction—timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition is timely or exceptions apply to permit review | Petition is untimely; no exception pleaded so court lacks jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; petition untimely |
| Alleyne retroactivity exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)) | Alleyne renders sentence illegal and constitutes a new constitutional right allowing relief | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; no timeliness exception | Alleyne not available; Supreme Court held Alleyne not retroactive in Washington; petition untimely |
| Brady/newly discovered facts exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Discovery in 2016 that building was condemned shortly after arrest is new exculpatory evidence | Condemnation was discoverable earlier; Hammond failed to exercise due diligence to find it | Exception not satisfied; petition untimely |
| 60‑day filing requirement after recognition of new right | If Alleyne created a new right, petition filed well within 60 days of decision | Petition filed long after Alleyne decision so fails 60‑day requirement | Even if Alleyne applied, Hammond did not file within 60 days; untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements requiring jury finding)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses 60‑day filing requirement when a new right is recognized)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (same: untimely PCRA petitions deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explains due diligence requirement for newly discovered facts exception)