Com. v. Luce, S.
Com. v. Luce, S. No. 988 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Scott Luce pled guilty in 2002 to aggravated indecent assault of a child under 13 and statutory sexual assault; he was sentenced to consecutive 4–10 year terms.
- At sentencing there were no mandatory minimums for these offenses; Pennsylvania later enacted mandatory minimums for aggravated indecent assault.
- Luce pursued direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc and lost earlier collateral challenges; he filed a second PCRA petition in March 2016 claiming his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and related authorities.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Luce responded, and the court dismissed the petition on May 9, 2016, informing him he had 30 days to appeal.
- Luce’s notice of appeal was docketed June 29, 2016 (51 days after the dismissal); the record contained no proof of earlier filing or postal/serving dates.
- The Superior Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Luce’s notice of appeal was untimely and there was no evidence of fraud or court-process breakdown to excuse the delay, and therefore quashed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne (and related juvenile-sentencing cases) rendered Luce’s sentence illegal and is retroactively applicable | Luce argued Alleyne, Montgomery, Miller, and related authority rendered his sentence illegal, implying entitlement to relief on collateral review | Commonwealth implicitly argued no entitlement on PCRA grounds; court did not reach merits due to timeliness | Not reached on merits because appeal was quashed as untimely |
| Whether Luce’s notice of appeal from the PCRA dismissal was timely | Luce asserted he timely filed his notice of appeal (June 29, 2016) | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the appeal was filed after the 30-day limit and record contains no proof of timely filing or mail date | Appeal untimely; Superior Court quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the court may excuse an untimely appeal due to court-process breakdown or fraud | Luce did not offer evidence of fraud or administrative breakdown; claimed reliance on retroactivity rules | Commonwealth showed no breakdown or fraud in the record | No excuse applied; filing deadline not extendable; appeal quashed |
| Whether imposition of a guideline-range sentence above a later-declared-unconstitutional mandatory minimum is unlawful | Luce implied the mandatory-minimum rulings rendered his sentence illegal | Commonwealth noted prior precedent that a guideline sentence exceeding a mandatory minimum is not unlawful | Not decided for Luce; court cited precedent that standard-range sentences above a mandatory minimum are not automatically unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory minimums must be based on jury findings of fact)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (procedural rule made retroactive for juveniles in Miller)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new constitutional rules generally not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (declared section 9718 unconstitutional on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super. 2015) (imposition of a guideline-range sentence exceeding a mandatory minimum is not unlawful)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (only fraud or court-process breakdown can excuse untimely appeals)