Com. v. Lee, R.
1130 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Appellant Raymont Maurice Lee pled guilty to third-degree murder on May 5, 2004, under a negotiated 15–30 year sentence after a mistrial was declared when a witness improperly commented on his invocation of counsel. No direct appeal was filed.
- Lee filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2005 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to consult about an appeal and advising acceptance of the plea; the PCRA court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing and this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
- Lee filed successive collateral filings: a second PCRA in 2012 (dismissed as untimely/previously litigated), a third PCRA in 2015 raising Alleyne-based sentencing illegality (dismissed; Lee failed to prosecute his appeal), and the fourth PCRA in March 2016 again asserting Alleyne.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); Lee appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and Lee failed to invoke any timeliness exception, so the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Lee's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee’s March 2016 PCRA petition was timely | Lee contended his Alleyne claim made his sentence illegal and thus fit a timeliness exception | The petition was filed more than a decade after finality and no statutory timeliness exception applies | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Alleyne created a new right qualifying for §9545(b)(1)(iii) relief | Alleyne announced a constitutional rule affecting mandatory minimums that must be applied retroactively | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review | Alleyne not retroactive; exception inapplicable |
| Whether Lee’s sentence is illegally imposed under Alleyne | Lee argued mandatory-minimum sentencing components were unconstitutional under Alleyne | Commonwealth maintained Alleyne cannot revive time-barred collateral claims | Court did not reach merits due to timeliness/jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (legality claims can be lost if raised in untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2000) (legality of sentence claims are cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the exclusive vehicle for post-conviction relief for cognizable claims)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA denials)