Com. v. Hooks, R.
Com. v. Hooks, R. No. 1936 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- In 2005 Ronald Hooks pleaded guilty to burglary and two counts of robbery and received a negotiated sentence of 12.5 to 25 years; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Hooks filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in December 2005; counsel amended it and the PCRA court denied relief in December 2008; the Superior Court affirmed in 2010.
- On March 16, 2015 Hooks filed a second/serial PCRA petition (styled as a Motion to Modify Sentence) and later supplemented it (Aug. 17, 2015) citing Johnson and other recent decisions.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 18, 2016; Hooks appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court held Hooks’ judgment of sentence became final April 30, 2005; any PCRA petition was therefore due by April 30, 2006, and Hooks’ 2015 petition was patently untimely.
- Hooks failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the one-year time-bar (including the ‘‘newly recognized constitutional right’’ exception), so the court lacked jurisdiction and denied relief without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Hooks' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hooks’ 2015 PCRA petition was timely or eligible for an exception to the one-year PCRA time-bar | Hooks invoked recent Supreme Court decisions (principally Johnson) and argued a newly recognized constitutional right or that he was a "three-strike" offender, so the petition should be timely | The judgment became final in 2005; the petition filed in 2015 is untimely and Hooks did not plead/prove any §9545(b) exception or timely file within 60 days of any new decision | Petition untimely; Hooks failed to invoke a statutory exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Johnson or related cases entitled Hooks to relief or to tolling of the time-bar | Johnson (and Alleyne/Newman alleged analogues) purportedly affected mandatory-minimum/"three-strike" sentencing rights | Johnson applied to the federal ACCA residual clause and did not announce a new constitutional right applicable here; Hooks received a negotiated sentence that avoided mandatory minimums | Johnson did not salvage Hooks’ untimely petition; his negotiated sentence was not affected |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | Hooks argued dismissal without a hearing was improper and prejudicial | Where a petition is untimely and no exception is pled/proven, the court lacks jurisdiction and dismissal without a hearing is proper | No error: dismissal without hearing appropriate because of lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Alleyne/Newman claims could be raised despite delay | Hooks suggested Alleyne/Newman supported his claim of an illegal mandatory minimum | Even if Alleyne/Newman might be relevant, Hooks did not file within 60 days of those decisions and the claims remain time-barred | Claims untimely under §9545(b)(2); Alleyne does not revive untimely PCRA petitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (de novo review for timeliness questions)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely PCRA petitions must be dismissed unless an exception is pled and proven)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (burden to plead and prove statutory exception to time-bar)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not revive an untimely PCRA challenge to mandatory minimums)