Com. v. Hixon, L.
1492 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Lance Alan Hixon was convicted by jury of aggravated assault, endangering the welfare of children, and simple assault and sentenced on May 7, 2013 to an aggregate 60 to 180 months' imprisonment.
- Hixon did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on June 6, 2013.
- Hixon filed a PCRA petition on August 4, 2015, more than one year after his judgment became final.
- Hixon argued his petition met the timeliness exception at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) by relying on Commonwealth v. Hopkins as rendering his sentence illegal.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely; Hixon appealed pro se and the Superior Court reviewed timeliness jurisdiction before addressing merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hixon's PCRA petition is timely under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Hopkins creates a newly-recognized constitutional rule that makes Hixon's sentence illegal, so the timeliness exception applies | Hopkins is inapposite to Hixon's case and Alleyne-based rulings do not apply retroactively to collateral cases | Petition is untimely; Court lacks jurisdiction and dismissed the PCRA petition |
| Whether Hopkins/Alleyne apply retroactively to collateral-review cases like Hixon's | Hopkins (an application of Alleyne) renders mandatory-minimum sentencing law unconstitutional and should trigger § 9545(b)(1)(ii) relief | Hopkins addressed a different statute (§ 6317) and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review | Hopkins does not help Hixon; Alleyne (and extensions) do not apply retroactively to collateral cases, so the exception does not save the petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (held § 6317 mandatory-minimum rule unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness considered separate from merits)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (legality-of-sentence claims still must meet PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (same; procedural requirements for collateral relief)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be found by jury; does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral-review cases)
Order affirmed.