Com. v. Lane, L.
417 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 8, 2016Background
- Lamont Lane pleaded guilty (Nov. 9, 2010) to two counts of possession with intent to deliver and one count of possession; sentenced Aug. 18, 2011 to mandatory minimum 3–6 years with 122 days credit. No direct appeal or post-sentence motion was filed.
- Lane filed a pro se PCRA petition on July 17, 2015; counsel filed an amended petition asserting the sentencing order failed to award 185 days of time credit for pre-sentence custody.
- The Commonwealth conceded the sentencing order contained a patent error and agreed to entry of an amended sentencing order granting the additional 185 days credit; the court entered the amended order in January 2016.
- Lane then raised an Alleyne-based constitutional challenge seeking resentencing without application of the mandatory minimum (claiming the amended order rendered his sentence "unfinal").
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely (filed well after the one-year PCRA filing period) and held that correction of a patent sentencing error affecting only credit does not reset the judgment-of-sentence finality clock.
- Lane appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction because Lane’s judgment of sentence became final in 2011 and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne entitles Lane to resentencing because correcting time-credit made his sentence unfinal | Lane: correcting patent sentencing error in 2016 rendered sentence unfinal so Alleyne applies | Commonwealth/PCRA court: credit correction only altered sentence administration and did not restore direct-review rights or reset finality | Held: Alleyne does not apply; amended credit order did not reset finality and PCRA petition was untimely |
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely or an exception applies | Lane: impliedly argued timeliness because of post-amendment unfinality and Alleyne | Commonwealth: petition filed after statutory one-year period and no timeliness exception pleaded or proven | Held: Petition untimely; no statutory exception proven, so court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 86 A.3d 883 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness of PCRA petition implicates jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness exceptions and 60-day requirement)
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (correction of sentence that only affects credit does not reset finality clock)
- Commonwealth v. DeHart, 730 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 1999) (successful collateral relief that only affects sentence does not restore direct-appeal rights)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court jurisdiction to amend sentence within 30 days)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions may be considered only if a statutory exception is established)