Com. v. Martorell, E.
Com. v. Martorell, E. No. 1453 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- Appellant Martorell was charged in 2009 with multiple cocaine offenses after undercover drug buys in 2008.
- He pled guilty August 27, 2009 and was sentenced September 30, 2009 to 10–20 years; the plea included a stated minimum term.
- Appellant filed a pro se post-sentence motion which the court denied; the court noted the minimum term as agreed in the plea.
- On January 22, 2016, Martorell filed a PCRA petition; counsel was appointed and relief was denied August 24, 2016 as untimely.
- Martorell did not timely appeal the judgment, so his finality date was October 30, 2009; he thus had until October 30, 2010 to file a timely PCRA petition.
- The PCRA petition invoked a newly recognized constitutional right argument based on Alleyne but was filed more than 60 days after Alleyne was decided, and Alleyne is not retroactive for PCRA purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely filed | Martorell argues Alleyne-created right tolls time bar | Commonwealth asserts Alleyne retroactivity does not apply and petition untimely | Untimely; Alleyne not retroactive and 60-day rule not met |
| Whether Alleyne created a retroactive new constitutional right for the time bar | Alleyne should render petition timely under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Alleyne is not retroactive and not applicable to this case | Not applicable; Alleyne not retroactive and not within the exception |
| Whether a legality-of-sentence claim overrides timeliness | Alleged illegal sentence could permit PCRA relief | Legality-of-sentence claims still must satisfy time bar or exception | Rejected; timeliness not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (review of PCRA denial for legal error and record support)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA timeliness framework)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness jurisdictional rule for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (timeliness of PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (pro se post-sentence motions by represented defendants nullity)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (pro se filings when represented)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (pro se submissions by represented defendants nullity)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (timeliness clock starts when case filed for new decisional law)
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness for new decisional-law claims)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA timing)