Com. v. Kasper, P., Jr.
Com. v. Kasper, P., Jr. No. 2042 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- Paul J. Kasper Jr. was convicted by a jury in June 2011 of multiple sexual offenses against a 14‑year‑old and sentenced on September 29, 2011 to an aggregate 15–30 year term, with the trial court applying the mandatory minimum statute 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.
- Kasper’s direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court in August 2012; he did not seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so his judgment became final on August 3, 2012.
- Kasper filed a pro se PCRA petition on October 19, 2015 asserting that Alleyne v. United States may render his mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional; he later filed a counseled amended PCRA petition in July 2016.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 Notice to Dismiss in October 2016 and denied relief on November 30, 2016; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw; Kasper did not file a pro se response.
- The Superior Court conducted the required Turner/Pitts review, concluded counsel substantially complied with withdrawal requirements, independently reviewed the record, and affirmed the PCRA denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kasper) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/jurisdiction: Is Kasper’s PCRA petition timely or saved by Alleyne? | Alleyne announces that mandatory‑minimum enhancements are elements that must be found by a jury; Kasper argued this entitled him to collateral relief from his mandatory minimum sentence. | Kasper’s judgment was final in 2012; his petition filed in 2015 is facially untimely and Alleyne (decided 2013) does not apply retroactively on collateral review; the 60‑day exceptions to the PCRA time bar were not satisfied. | Held: PCRA lacked jurisdiction; petition untimely and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, so relief denied. |
| Adequacy of counsel’s Turner/Finley no‑merit compliance | Counsel provided a no‑merit letter and sought withdrawal; Kasper implicitly contended he should not be deprived of counsel or relief. | Counsel complied substantially with Turner/Pitts/Friend requirements, provided the no‑merit letter to Kasper, and advised him of his rights; PCRA court independently reviewed and agreed. | Held: Counsel’s withdrawal was permitted; Superior Court granted withdrawal. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim as timeliness savior | Kasper alleged trial counsel ineffective, which he argued should permit review of the sentence claim. | A claim of ineffectiveness does not circumvent the PCRA timeliness jurisdictional bar absent a recognized exception. | Held: Ineffectiveness does not rescue an otherwise untimely petition; claim rejected. |
| Merits of Alleyne‑based sentence claim | Kasper sought relief from § 9718 mandatory minimum under Alleyne and progeny. | Even if Alleyne affects legality, it does not provide jurisdiction to review final sentences on collateral review; prior precedent precludes retroactive application. | Held: Alleyne claim unsuccessful on collateral review; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (held that any fact increasing a mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (explains PCRA timeliness jurisdictional rule and finality)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (requires counsel’s independent review and specifies withdrawal procedures on collateral appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (holding that ineffective assistance claims do not save an otherwise untimely petition)