Com. v. Jacques, R.
Com. v. Jacques, R. No. 577 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Reneau Jean Jacques pleaded guilty in 2009 to aggravated assault and attempted robbery for firing a handgun and causing injury; court imposed consecutive sentences including a five-year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.
- Direct appeal challenged sentencing discretion; this Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review in 2010.
- Jacques filed a pro se PCRA petition in June 2015 asserting his sentence is illegal under Alleyne v. United States.
- PCRA counsel limited the claim to an Alleyne-based illegal-sentence challenge; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely in January 2016.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders-style brief and moved to withdraw; this Court required corrected client notice before accepting withdrawal.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness and retroactivity and concluded Jacques could not invoke the PCRA's retroactivity exception for Alleyne-based claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacques' Alleyne-based claim renders his sentence illegal and is timely under the PCRA | Alleyne rendered mandatory-minimum § 9712 unconstitutional; the rule should apply retroactively, excusing PCRA timeliness | PCRA court: petition is untimely; Alleyne and its Pennsylvania progeny do not apply retroactively on collateral review | Petition untimely; Alleyne does not apply retroactively per Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so claim fails for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether counsel complied with withdrawal/notice requirements when filing a no‑merit brief | Counsel provided a no‑merit (Anders) brief and client notice | Court identified defects in initial client notice and required corrected notice before permitting withdrawal | After corrected notice, counsel satisfied Turner/Finley/Pitts/Friend requirements; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (invalidating § 9712 under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (Alleyne-based analysis applied to Pennsylvania mandatory minimum statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2006) (additional notice requirements for counsel withdrawing in collateral proceedings)