Com. v. Hurley, K.
Com. v. Hurley, K. No. 2457 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Kevin Hurley pleaded guilty (Jan 7, 2009) to four counts of PWID (methamphetamine) and one count of criminal conspiracy based on four controlled buys in 2008 and received an aggregate 10–20 year sentence composed of mandatory minimum terms under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4).
- Hurley did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on February 6, 2009 (30 days after sentencing).
- First pro se PCRA filed April 4, 2014, asserted Alleyne-based challenge to mandatory minimums; counsel filed Turner/Finley no-merit letter, PCRA court dismissed as untimely, and this Court affirmed (Hurley v. Commonwealth, Pa. Super. op.).
- Hurley filed a second pro se PCRA petition March 16, 2016, again arguing Alleyne invalidated his mandatory minimums and invoking Montgomery/Miller retroactivity principles; PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on July 18, 2016.
- This appeal challenges the dismissal as untimely and contends a newly recognized constitutional-right exception (Montgomery/Miller) renders Alleyne retroactive; the Superior Court affirmed dismissal for untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurley’s second PCRA petition was timely or fit a time-for-filing exception | Hurley: Montgomery/Miller created retroactive Eighth Amendment principles that make Alleyne-based sentencing claims a cognizable new constitutional right under §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth: Hurley’s judgment was final in 2009; petition filed in 2016 is facially untimely and Alleyne has not been held retroactive by controlling authority for collateral review | Petition untimely; no applicable time-for-filing exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania | Hurley: Alleyne invalidates mandatory minimums and should be applied retroactively via Montgomery/Miller principles | Commonwealth: Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review (Washington) | Alleyne does not apply retroactively; Hurley’s Alleyne claim fails the exception |
| Whether Montgomery triggers retroactivity for non-juvenile Eighth Amendment rules like Alleyne | Hurley: Montgomery’s recognition of retroactivity for Miller supports retroactivity of Alleyne | Commonwealth: Montgomery addressed juvenile-lifer rule (Miller) and does not alter Alleyne’s non-retroactivity as explained by Washington | Montgomery does not render Alleyne retroactive; Hurley’s reliance is misplaced |
| Whether an RRRI eligibility claim saves the petition from untimeliness | Hurley: Trial court failed to impose RRRI eligibility and this is a non-waivable illegal-sentence claim | Commonwealth: Legality-of-sentence claims remain subject to PCRA time limits and require an applicable exception; Hurley did not show one | RRRI claim is untimely and does not satisfy a time exception; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held that any fact that increases mandatory minimum sentence is an element for jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (held Miller created a new substantive rule that is retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussed invalidity and severability issues relating to mandatory minimum statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting failure to determine RRRI eligibility is an illegal-sentence claim)