Com. v. Ingraham, J.
Com. v. Ingraham, J. No. 1919 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- James John Ingraham was convicted (by plea) of multiple sexual offenses, including raping his daughter, and received aggregate sentences across three dockets (consecutive and concurrent 8–16 year terms with 15 years’ probation).
- Ingraham did not file direct appeals from his sentences; the earliest conviction became final in 2009 and the later convictions became final in 2013.
- On June 1, 2015, Ingraham filed his first PCRA petition challenging the legality of his sentences, relying in part on Alleyne.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel, granted counsel’s withdrawal petition, and dismissed the PCRA petition as untimely on November 3, 2016.
- Ingraham appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the petition satisfied the PCRA timeliness requirements before addressing merits and affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ingraham) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely filed | Petition challenged sentence legality (citing Alleyne), implying time limits should not bar review | Petition was filed well outside the one-year filing window and no timeliness exception applies | The petition was untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to hear merits |
| Whether Alleyne creates a timeliness exception for collateral review | Alleyne undermines sentencing factfinding and supports review of his sentence despite delay | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and does not create a timeliness exception here | Alleyne does not render the petition timely; retroactivity does not favor collateral relief |
| Whether Alleyne applies when no mandatory minimum was imposed | Alleyne-based argument implicitly invoked to challenge sentencing | Alleyne addresses mandatory minimum factfinding and is inapplicable where no mandatory minimum exists | Alleyne inapplicable because Ingraham was not subject to mandatory minimums |
| Whether the court may reach the merits despite timeliness failure | Merits-based sentencing claims should be addressed on substantive grounds | Timeliness is jurisdictional; without an applicable exception the court cannot reach merits | Court may not review merits of an untimely PCRA petition; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standards for appellate review of PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Chester v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; untimely petitions cannot be entertained)
- Stokes v. Commonwealth, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness considered separately from merits)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (legality-of-sentence claims still must meet PCRA time limits)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (courts lack authority to address merits of untimely PCRA petitions)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be found by a jury) (does not apply retroactively on collateral review for purposes of PCRA relief)
- Washington v. Commonwealth, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)