Com. v. Lee, T.
Com. v. Lee, T. No. 512 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Taji Lee was convicted in 2006 of multiple drug delivery and related offenses and sentenced to 30–60 years. Direct appeals concluded in 2008; final judgment became effective March 17, 2009.
- Lee filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2009; after appointed counsel, partial dismissals and an evidentiary hearing, the court denied relief and appellate challenges were ultimately concluded by 2015.
- Lee filed a second PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of appeal rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court granted relief and appellate review followed.
- On March 5, 2015, Lee filed the third (current) pro se PCRA petition raising an illegal-sentence claim based on Alleyne and requesting resentencing; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and withdrew.
- The PCRA court dismissed the March 5, 2015 petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because Lee’s judgment became final in March 2009 and he did not plead or prove any timeliness exception.
- Lee appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that Alleyne does not render the sentence reviewable on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lee) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court should have addressed constitutionality of § 9545(b) before dismissing as untimely | Lee argued PCRA court erred in not resolving a threshold constitutional challenge to § 9545(b) jurisdictional removal | Commonwealth maintained the petition was untimely and no exception was pleaded; threshold constitutional challenge insufficiently raised | Court rejected Lee; dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely and no exception proved |
| Whether Lee’s claim could be treated under state habeas (§ 6503) instead of PCRA because PCRA lacks remedy for resentencing | Lee sought habeas relief or amendment to pursue resentencing outside PCRA timing rules | Commonwealth argued PCRA subsumes habeas where PCRA provides remedy; illegality-of-sentence claim is cognizable under PCRA | Court treated petition as PCRA and held habeas alternative improper; petition remained subject to PCRA timeliness rules |
| Whether Alleyne created a newly recognized constitutional right allowing late PCRA relief | Lee claimed Alleyne rendered his sentence illegal and thus exempt from PCRA time-bar or entitled to the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Commonwealth relied on Pennsylvania precedent that Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review | Court held Alleyne does not apply retroactively in collateral proceedings; Lee failed to plead a timely exception |
| Whether an illegality-of-sentence claim avoids PCRA timeliness requirements | Lee contended illegality claims are not subject to PCRA timeliness limits | Commonwealth argued timeliness is jurisdictional and applies to all PCRA claims, including legality challenges | Court held legality claims can be lost if raised in untimely PCRA petitions without an exception; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; petitioner bears burden to plead and prove exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA appeals; deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (legality-of-sentence claims may be lost if raised in untimely PCRA petitions without an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed while a prior PCRA appeal is pending)