Com. v. Maldonado-Rivera, V.
Com. v. Maldonado-Rivera v. No. 2050 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Victor Maldonado-Rivera entered open guilty pleas in 2006 to sexual and assault offenses; sentencing occurred October 4, 2006, and included mandatory-minimum components and a determination he was a sexually violent predator.
- Direct appeal and discretionary review concluded in 2009 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal); judgment of sentence became final on November 24, 2009.
- Maldonado-Rivera pursued multiple post-conviction filings: an earlier PCRA/habeas claim about counsel at preliminary arraignment (remanded for counsel, then denied), and a 2015 PCRA Alleyne-based challenge (denied as untimely).
- On July 5, 2016 he filed the PCRA petition at issue, challenging mandatory-minimum sentences imposed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718(a)(3) as unconstitutional/ex post facto because that subsection post-dated his offenses.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the July 2016 petition as untimely on November 23, 2016. Maldonado-Rivera appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Maldonado-Rivera argued his sentence was illegal (ex post facto) because § 9718(a)(3) post-dated his offenses; relief should be available despite delay | Commonwealth argued the petition was facially untimely (filed well after the one-year PCRA deadline) and no timeliness exception was pled | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed because no § 9545(b) exception was alleged or proven |
| Applicability of PCRA exceptions | Maldonado-Rivera implied illegality of sentence cannot be waived and counsel’s failure to raise it made claims timely | Commonwealth: illegality-of-sentence claims remain subject to PCRA time limits; ineffective assistance does not excuse untimeliness | Court held petitioner failed to invoke any statutory timeliness exception; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| 60-day rule under § 9545(b)(2) | N/A (claimed newly discovered or retroactive rule implicitly) | Commonwealth argued even if an exception existed, petitioner did not file within 60 days of when claim could have been presented | Court noted petitioner could have discovered the sentencing issue in 2006, so § 9545(b)(2) 60-day requirement is not met |
| Merits of ex post facto claim | Maldonado-Rivera challenged mandatory minimums as ex post facto violations | Commonwealth did not reach merits due to procedural bar | Merits not addressed because of procedural timeliness failure |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA order)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are subject to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance of counsel does not excuse untimeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (judgment of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes 90 days after denial of allowance of appeal)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (constitutional rule regarding facts that increase mandatory minimums)