Com. v. Mann, J.
Com. v. Mann, J. No. 2204 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Joseph R. Mann, Jr. was convicted in 2007 of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 31½ to 63 years imprisonment. His direct appeal was denied in 2008.
- Mann filed a first PCRA petition in 2009; after proceedings and appeal, the denial was affirmed and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal in 2015.
- On March 29, 2016, Mann filed a second (serial) PCRA petition claiming his sentence was illegal under Montgomery v. Louisiana as a newly recognized constitutional right entitling him to relief.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition on June 15, 2016 as untimely; Mann appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court held the petition was untimely because Mann’s judgment of sentence became final on September 29, 2008, and the one-year PCRA filing period expired in 2009; Mann did not establish any timely exception.
- The court rejected Mann’s reliance on Montgomery (and Miller) because those decisions concern mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile homicide offenders and do not apply to Mann’s adult, non-homicide sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition was timely | Mann: Montgomery announced a new constitutional right that makes his sentence illegal and thus satisfies the §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Mann’s judgment was final in 2008; he filed in 2016 and did not plead/prove a §9545 exception within 60 days | Court: Petition was patently untimely; Mann failed to plead/prove a cognizable §9545 exception |
| Whether Montgomery/Miller apply to Mann’s sentence | Mann: Montgomery (relying on Miller) renders his sentence unconstitutional | Commonwealth: Montgomery/Miller apply only to mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles convicted of homicide, not to adult non-homicide offenders | Court: Montgomery and Miller do not apply; Mann was an adult and did not receive a mandatory life-without-parole sentence |
| Whether illegality of sentence can bypass PCRA time limits | Mann: Sentence illegality is not waivable and permits review | Commonwealth: Illegality claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits or an exception | Court: Agreed with Commonwealth; illegality claims remain subject to PCRA timing and exceptions |
| Whether the PCRA court should have held a hearing before dismissal | Mann: Implicitly sought relief via petition and response | PCRA court: Issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed as untimely without hearing | Court: Affirmed dismissal without hearing because petition was time-barred and exceptions not pleaded/proved |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness and 60-day filing rule for exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (interpretation of §9545(b)(1)(iii) requiring that the new constitutional right already be recognized as retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (statutory-exception pleading requirements under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (burden to plead and prove elements of statutory exceptions to time-bar)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts lack jurisdiction to grant relief on untimely PCRA petitions absent an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims remain subject to PCRA time limits)