Com. v. Martin, S.
1898 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Samuel Lee Martin pled guilty in 2009 to theft and violent offenses and received an aggregate sentence of 13 to 35 years, including a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.
- Martin repeatedly sought post-conviction relief in state and federal courts without success; his prior appeals were denied.
- On October 12, 2016 Martin filed a praecipe and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming his detention was unlawful because no written sentencing order was entered and provided to the DOC upon his admission.
- The trial court treated the petition as a PCRA filing, dismissed it as untimely without a hearing, and Martin appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court considered whether the claim sounded in habeas corpus or under the PCRA and whether the court had jurisdiction to consider an Alleyne/Valentine-based illegality-of-sentence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin's claim about lack of a written sentencing order is cognizable as a habeas claim | Martin: detention unlawful because DOC had no written sentencing order; habeas corpus proper | Commonwealth: PCRA subsumes collateral relief; habeas label can't avoid PCRA where remedy exists under PCRA | Court: Although such claims can sound in habeas, prior precedent (Joseph v. Glunt) rejects Martin's claim on the merits; no relief due |
| Whether the petition was properly treated as an untimely PCRA petition | Martin: claim should proceed via habeas, not PCRA time-bar | Commonwealth: PCRA governs collateral attacks; time-bar applies | Court: Trial court erred to apply PCRA time-bar to sentencing-order habeas claim, but reached correct result on merits so affirmance is proper |
| Whether Alleyne/Valentine renders Martin's sentence illegal and this can be raised now | Martin: sentence illegal under Valentine/Alleyne; legality cannot be waived and can be raised anytime | Commonwealth: Alleged Alleyne error does not overcome PCRA timeliness requirements; Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review | Court: Legality claims are cognizable under PCRA but Martin failed to plead a timeliness exception; court lacks jurisdiction to review; no relief due |
| Whether Alleyne/Valentine applies retroactively to collateral review | Martin: Valentine applies to his sentence | Commonwealth: Alleyne/Valentine does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Court: Alleyne does not apply retroactively; Martin's sentence is not illegal on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA subsumes collateral relief including habeas)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (naming a petition habeas does not avoid PCRA time-bar)
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (DOC's lack of written sentencing order does not render detention unlawful where docket and transcript establish sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2011) (claims outside PCRA eligibility may be raised via habeas)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (legality-of-sentence claims implicating Alleyne require timeliness jurisdictional analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applied Alleyne to mandatory minimum statute)