Com. v. Hughston, K.
Com. v. Hughston, K. No. 2564 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Hughston was convicted by jury (2009) of two robberies, conspiracy, forgery, and PIC; sentenced to 132–300 months and did not file a direct appeal.
- He filed four prior PCRA petitions, all dismissed and affirmed on appeal; the instant filing is his fifth PCRA petition (filed June 13, 2016).
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, received Hughston’s response, and dismissed the petition; Hughston appealed.
- Hughston’s sentence became final July 15, 2009; a timely PCRA would have been due by July 15, 2010, so the 2016 petition was facially untimely.
- Hughston asserted the newly recognized constitutional-rights exception based on Johnson (2015) to challenge the mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 and raised ineffective-assistance and prior-conviction challenges.
- The PCRA court concluded Hughston failed to invoke a timely statutory exception, Johnson did not render section 9714 invalid or apply retroactively to him, his counsel claims do not excuse untimeliness, and his prior-conviction claim was previously litigated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Hughston: petition timely under newly recognized constitutional-right exception based on Johnson | Commonwealth: petition untimely; exceptions not met; Johnson does not invalidate § 9714 for Hughston or apply retroactively | Petition untimely; Hughston failed to plead a valid § 9545(b)(1) exception, petition dismissed |
| 60-day filing requirement for exception | Hughston: invoked Johnson (June 26, 2015) so exception applies | Commonwealth: petition filed nearly a year after Johnson, not within 60 days as required | Not satisfied; petition filed outside 60-day window (untimely invocation) |
| Applicability of Johnson to § 9714 mandatory minimum | Hughston: Johnson’s vagueness holding for ACCA residual clause renders his § 9714-based mandatory sentence illegal | Commonwealth: Johnson does not invalidate § 9714 or apply to Hughston | Court: Johnson does not demonstrate § 9714 is unconstitutional as applied to Hughston or that Johnson is retroactive here |
| Ineffective-assistance claims as timeliness excuse | Hughston: counsel failure claims warrant review despite untimeliness | Commonwealth: IAC claims do not create a timeliness exception | Court: IAC claims do not invoke a valid timeliness exception; claims fail to overcome time-bar |
| Re-litigation of prior-conviction challenge | Hughston: he was never convicted of aggravated assault used to impose mandatory minimum | Commonwealth: claim previously litigated and resolved | Court: claim precluded as previously litigated; not a basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; finality rule)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual-clause vagueness decision relied on by petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (60-day filing requirement for newly recognized constitutional-right exception)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (IAC claims do not excuse an untimely PCRA petition)