Com. v. Hurley, L.
Com. v. Hurley, L. No. 360 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Lane C. Hurley was convicted in 2006 of sexual offenses against a child and received mandatory minimum sentences under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 for aggravated indecent assault and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
- His judgment of sentence became final on October 7, 2009, after direct review concluded with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denial of allowance of appeal.
- Hurley filed a first PCRA petition in 2010 which was denied; collateral review in federal court was unsuccessful.
- On November 7, 2016, Hurley filed a second PCRA petition asserting Alleyne-based challenges to his mandatory minimums.
- The PCRA court held a hearing, dismissed the petition as untimely, and found Hurley could not invoke the newly-recognized-rights exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(iii) and (2)) because Alleyne and related state decisions do not apply retroactively on collateral review and Wolfe predated his petition by more than 60 days.
- Hurley appealed; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and sought leave to withdraw, which the Superior Court granted while affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Hurley’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition challenges legality of mandatory minimums under Alleyne; therefore fits the newly-recognized-rights exception | Petition filed well after one-year limit and cannot meet the 60-day filing requirement for a newly recognized right | Petition untimely; exception not met; dismissal affirmed |
| Retroactivity of Alleyne on collateral review | Alleyne and Wolfe establish a right that should be applied to sentences imposed before Alleyne | Alleyne (and Wolfe) do not apply retroactively on collateral review; Pennsylvania Supreme Court so held | Alleyne/Wolfe not retroactive for collateral review; Hurley cannot rely on them |
| Effect of Commonwealth v. Wolfe | Wolfe extended Alleyne principles to mandatory minimums based on victim age, supporting Hurley’s claim | Wolfe addressed direct appeals post-Alleyne and did not create a retroactive rule for collateral relief | Wolfe does not render Alleyne retroactive; it cannot revive an untimely petition |
| Counsel withdrawal procedure (Turner/Finley) | Counsel submitted an Anders brief and withdrawal materials to Hurley | Commonwealth did not contest procedural sufficiency | Superior Court found counsel complied with Turner/Finley (Friend) requirements and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (due process and Sixth Amendment require jury finding beyond reasonable doubt for fact that increases statutory maximum)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (Apprendi principle extended to facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (applied Alleyne to mandatory minimums based on victim age on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (discusses application of Alleyne to factors imposing minimum sentences)