Com. v. Lanier, T.
727 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Terry L. Lanier was convicted in 2005 of multiple sexual offenses and, after a Megan’s Law hearing, was sentenced in 2007 to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years’ probation.
- Direct appeals concluded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on February 13, 2009; judgment became final May 14, 2009.
- Lanier filed a first PCRA petition in April 2010, which was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- Lanier filed a second PCRA petition on September 22, 2014, later supplemented (August 2015) asserting: (1) his sentence is illegal under Alleyne v. United States; and (2) his trial counsel fraudulently used two different attorney ID numbers, violating his constitutional rights.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely under the one-year PCRA filing rule; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdictional bar | Lanier contends Alleyne renders his sentence illegal and justifies collateral review despite delay. | Commonwealth argues Lanier’s petition was filed well after the one-year deadline and he did not plead a valid timeliness exception. | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits because Lanier failed to establish a time-bar exception. |
| Alleyne as newly recognized, retroactive rule | Lanier argues Alleyne creates a new constitutional rule invalidating his sentence. | Commonwealth notes Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and cites precedent rejecting retroactivity. | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review; Lanier cannot satisfy the new-right/time exception. |
| Alleyne as "new fact" triggering 60-day filing | Lanier claimed he only learned of Alleyne later from an inmate, invoking new-facts exception. | Commonwealth contends judicial decisions are not "new facts" and Lanier filed well beyond 60 days after Alleyne. | Judicial decisions are not "new facts"; Lanier filed more than 60 days after Alleyne, so the exception fails. |
| Counsel ID-number discrepancy (fraud claim) | Lanier alleged trial counsel used two different attorney ID numbers, constituting fraud and violating rights. | Commonwealth argues the documents showing different IDs are public and thus discoverable earlier; Lanier did not show prejudice or explain constitutional impact. | Claim is untimely and unsupported as a newly discovered fact; no showing of how discrepancy affected constitutional rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (Supreme Court decision addressed by Lanier but held not retroactive for collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (timeliness requirements for collateral relief are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 51 A.3d 195 (Pa. 2012) (timeliness rules are mandatory and courts lack jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness exceptions and jurisdictional nature of PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial decisions do not qualify as "new facts" under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (even if a decision were a "new fact," petitioner must file within 60 days)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne does not invalidate mandatory minimums in untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez–Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)