Com. v. Mead, C., Jr.
Com. v. Mead, C., Jr. No. 67 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Clark E. Mead, Jr. was convicted by a jury in 2012 of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 27½ to 55 years’ imprisonment.
- Direct appeals concluded in 2014 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; Mead’s judgment became final on September 30, 2014.
- Mead filed a first counseled PCRA petition in July 2015; the PCRA court denied it and this Court affirmed in August 2016.
- On September 27, 2016, Mead filed a second petition (styled a motion to vacate illegal sentence) raising Alleyne-based constitutional arguments and invoking the PCRA’s timeliness-exception for newly recognized constitutional rights.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on November 30, 2016; Mead appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Mead’s petition was untimely and that Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review under Pennsylvania law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mead’s sentence must be vacated because 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 (mandatory sentencing provision) is unconstitutional under Alleyne | Mead argued Alleyne created a new constitutional rule requiring jury findings for facts that increase mandatory minimums, so his sentence is illegal | Commonwealth argued Mead’s petition was untimely and Alleyne-type relief does not apply retroactively on collateral review in PA | Petition dismissed as untimely; Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review under Pennsylvania precedent |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider Mead’s second petition filed ~1 year after the PCRA filing deadline | Mead invoked the PCRA exception for newly recognized constitutional rights and filed within 60 days of his claim | Commonwealth maintained Mead’s judgment became final 9/30/2014 and his 9/27/2016 filing exceeded the one-year limit and he did not meet an exception | Court held judgment was final 9/30/2014; petition filed outside the one-year requirement and no applicable timeliness exception applied |
| Whether claims asserting an illegal sentence are cognizable under the PCRA | Mead argued illegal-sentence claims are cognizable under the PCRA and thus his filing should be considered | Commonwealth acknowledged cognizability but argued timeliness bars relief here | Court agreed illegal-sentence claims are cognizable under PCRA but time bar deprived court of jurisdiction absent a valid exception |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in refusing relief under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 for illegal sentences | Mead asserted § 9542 permits relief for illegal sentences and trial court failed to follow it | Commonwealth maintained § 9542 does not overcome the PCRA time limits or retroactivity issues | Court held § 9542 does not negate the PCRA time bar or make Alleyne retroactive; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and PCRA timeliness principles)