Com. v. Naughton, J., Com. v. Naughton, J. No. 1603 WDA 2016

On March 18, 2008, James Naughton pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses involving a minor and was sentenced to 5–10 years imprisonment; he did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
Naughton filed an initial PCRA petition in September 2008 (later withdrawn), a second petition in January 2012 (dismissed as untimely), and a third petition treated as an untimely serial PCRA petition (dismissed March 10, 2015).
He appealed the 2015 dismissal claiming Alleyne created a new constitutional right; this court rejected retroactivity and affirmed in an unpublished memorandum in January 2016.
On February 19, 2016, Naughton filed another habeas corpus petition (treated as a fourth/serial PCRA petition) arguing Alleyne applied retroactively under Montgomery; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely on September 22, 2016.
The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was timely or met a statutory timeliness exception and whether Alleyne/Montgomery rendered Alleyne retroactive to collateral review.
The court concluded Naughton’s judgment became final April 17, 2008, the 2016 filing was untimely, and Naughton failed to prove any statutory exception entitling him to relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2016 PCRA petition was timely or satisfied a timeliness exception	Naughton argued Alleyne created a new constitutional right and Montgomery made Alleyne retroactive, so his serial petition is timely under the retroactivity exception	Commonwealth (and PCRA court) argued petition was untimely and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; Naughton failed to plead a valid exception	Petition is untimely; Naughton failed to prove any statutory timeliness exception, so PCRA court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed
Whether a claim that a sentence is illegal permits relief outside the PCRA time bar (relying on Vasquez)	Naughton contended trial courts never lose jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences, so time-bar should not apply	Commonwealth maintained illegality claims are subject to PCRA timeliness rules because timeliness is jurisdictional	Argument waived on appeal and, substantively, illegality claims must still be raised in a timely PCRA petition

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (addressed retroactivity of a new substantive rule)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court held Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 744 A.2d 1284 (Pa. 2000) (addressed trial court authority to correct illegal sentences)
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional and exceptions must be pled and proven)
Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawing from PCRA representation)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for ‘‘no-merit’’ letters accompanying withdrawal)