Com. v. Kwaha, J.
502 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 11, 2016Background
- In October 2008 Kwaha entered negotiated guilty pleas to PWID (possession with intent to deliver) and fleeing/eluding; aggregate sentence was 2–4 years plus ~6–12 months consecutive. Judgment became final November 14, 2008.
- Kwaha filed his first PCRA petition pro se on August 31, 2015, seeking relief based on Alleyne/Hopkins and later Montgomery. PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and was permitted to withdraw.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on January 21, 2016; Kwaha appealed. He also submitted a Rule 1925(b) statement slightly past the court’s deadline, which the Superior Court declined to deem waived.
- Kwaha argued he satisfied a timeliness exception by filing within 60 days of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Hopkins decision (which applied Alleyne to §6317 school-zone mandatory minimums), and later invoked Montgomery.
- The PCRA and Superior Courts found Kwaha’s petition facially untimely, Hopkins/Alleyne do not apply retroactively on collateral review per Pennsylvania precedent, and the record did not show he was actually sentenced under a statutory mandatory-minimum scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Kwaha: filed within 60 days of Hopkins; claims fall under §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Commonwealth: judgment final in 2008; petition filed 2015 and untimely; exceptions not met | Petition untimely; Kwaha failed to plead/prove any statutory exception |
| Applicability of Alleyne/Hopkins retroactively | Kwaha: Hopkins (Alleyne-based) entitles him to relief; Montgomery supports retroactivity analysis | Commonwealth: Hopkins does not create a retroactive right on collateral review; Washington holds Alleyne not retroactive | Alleyne/Hopkins do not provide retroactive relief in collateral PCRA petitions under Pennsylvania law |
| Relevance of Montgomery v. Louisiana | Kwaha: Montgomery’s retroactivity framework supports applying Hopkins/Alleyne retroactively | Commonwealth: Montgomery concerns Miller and juvenile LWOP; Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered Montgomery in Washington and still held Alleyne non-retroactive | Montgomery does not change outcome; it does not make Alleyne retroactive to Kwaha’s case |
| Legality/mandatory nature of sentence | Kwaha: received a 2-year minimum matching §6317 mandatory minimum; thus sentence was mandatory and illegal under Alleyne | Commonwealth/PCRA court: record contains no notice or sentencing entry showing a mandatory minimum under §6317; sentencing form and transcript do not show mandatory status | No record support that sentence was a statutory mandatory minimum; claim fails on the merits even if timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty must be an element found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (applied Alleyne to §6317 school-zone mandatory-minimum scheme on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial decisions are not "facts" for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA timeliness strict; exceptions exclusive)