Com. v. Jacobs, A.
664 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Anthony Michael Jacobs pled to drug offenses on January 6, 2014, and was sentenced on January 28, 2014; sentences at two dockets were ordered to run concurrently, with one sentence including a mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(ii).
- Jacobs did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final February 27, 2014.
- Jacobs filed a pro se PCRA petition on November 2, 2015, seeking resentencing on the basis that Alleyne v. United States made the mandatory-minimum provision unconstitutional as applied to him.
- Counsel was appointed, then permitted to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice proposing dismissal as untimely and ultimately dismissed the petition on April 13, 2016.
- The Commonwealth argued, and the court relied on precedent, that Alleyne does not provide a timely PCRA exception because it does not apply retroactively on collateral review and Jacobs filed more than 60 days after relevant decisions.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that no statutory timeliness exception applied, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacobs's PCRA petition was timely | Jacobs contends his Alleyne-based legality-of-sentence claim is cognizable and not waived; Alleyne was decided before his sentence so claim is available | Commonwealth contends the petition is facially untimely (filed beyond one-year post-final judgment) and Jacobs failed to invoke a statutory timeliness exception | Petition was untimely; dismissal proper for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Alleyne triggers a PCRA timeliness exception or applies retroactively on collateral review | Jacobs argues Alleyne undermines the mandatory-minimum and is a cognizable basis for relief | Commonwealth and precedent: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and subsequent decisions do not create a new "fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii); 60-day rule also bars relief | Alleyne does not meet PCRA timeliness exceptions; petition filed beyond 60 days of relevant decisions and Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (holding a fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (timeliness/jurisdiction principle)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (decisional law is not a "new fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (same principle)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (60-day filing rule for new decisional law)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (legality-of-sentence claims must still meet PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding § 7508 unconstitutional in light of Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same)