Com. v. Harris, D.
Com. v. Harris, D. No. 3638 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.May 23, 2017Background
- Dwayne Harris pleaded guilty in 2005 to rape, IDSI, incest, and corruption of minors; sentenced June 22, 2007 to 20–40 years plus 15 years probation. No direct appeal was filed.
- Harris filed his first PCRA petition pro se on February 18, 2015, asserting his mandatory-minimum sentence was unconstitutional under Alleyne and related Pennsylvania case law.
- PCRA counsel was appointed, filed a no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw, noting the petition was untimely and the sentence was not mandatory per the commitment form.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Harris responded, and the court dismissed the petition as untimely on November 3, 2015 and vacated PCRA counsel’s appointment.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether any statutory timeliness exception applied (including Alleyne-based claims) and affirmed the PCRA court, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris’s Alleyne-based challenge renders his petition timely under the PCRA’s new‑rights exception | Alleyne invalidated mandatory minimums like 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718; Wolfe applied Alleyne in Pennsylvania, so his sentence is illegal and fits the new‑right exception | Alleyne/Washington do not render Alleyne retroactive on collateral review; Wolfe applied Alleyne on direct appeal, not as a new retroactive right | Petition is untimely; Alleyne does not provide a retroactive exception, so no jurisdiction to review |
| Whether Harris satisfied PCRA’s 60‑day filing requirement for a timeliness exception | Filed within 60 days of Wolfe (per Harris) | Even if Alleyne applied, Harris did not file within 60 days of the pertinent decision; and Alleyne is not retroactive | Duty to file within 60 days not met; exception not satisfied |
| Whether Harris actually received a mandatory § 9718 sentence | Harris claims mandatory minimum under § 9718 | Sentencing paperwork attached to the record indicates the sentence was not a mandatory § 9718 sentence | Court relied on record showing no mandatory sentence; claim fails on the merits even if timely |
| Whether challenge to SVP/Megan’s Law provision excused untimeliness | Harris contends the SVP provision is unconstitutional | Claim does not fit any PCRA timeliness exception and was raised late | Claim is untimely and not reviewable under PCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne rule is not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (applied Alleyne on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne applied to cases pending on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (60‑day filing requirement for invoking timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Ciccone, 152 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)