Com. v. Nelson, J.
145 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- In 1982 Nelson and a co-conspirator entered an apartment to pick up cocaine, robbed the occupants, and two men were killed; Nelson was arrested ~5 years later and convicted in 1989 of two counts of second-degree murder and related offenses.
- Nelson received concurrent life sentences for the murder convictions; direct appeals were exhausted by 1992 and his judgment of sentence became final July 13, 1992.
- Nelson filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; the instant pro se filing was titled a habeas petition filed November 23, 2010, which the PCRA court treated as a PCRA petition and moved to dismiss as untimely.
- Nelson claimed newly discovered ballistics-related facts (including that his co-defendant sought funds for ballistics testing) and relied on later case law (Alleyne and its Pennsylvania progeny) to excuse the delay.
- The PCRA court found the petition untimely, rejected Nelson’s after-discovered-facts claim for lack of diligence and because the material was impeachment in nature, and concluded Alleyne-based arguments do not apply retroactively to final sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nelson’s filing is properly treated as a PCRA petition | Nelson styled it as habeas corpus but sought relief that attacks convictions | Commonwealth: claims cognizable under PCRA must be brought under PCRA | Court: Petition is a PCRA petition because it attacks convictions; PCRA is the sole collateral remedy |
| Whether petition was timely or an exception applies | Nelson asserted after-discovered ballistic facts and Alleyne-based rights to excuse delay | Commonwealth: judgment final in 1992; petition filed 2010 is untimely and exceptions don’t apply | Court: Petition untimely; Nelson failed to plead or prove any timeliness exception |
| Whether the ballistics information qualifies as after-discovered evidence | Nelson: ballistics report and co-defendant’s funding request were newly discovered facts | Commonwealth: information was discoverable earlier and would be impeachment/cumulative | Court: Nelson failed Johnson factors (no due diligence, evidence impeachment/cumulative); exception not met |
| Whether Alleyne and related PA cases apply retroactively to Nelson’s final sentence | Nelson: Alleyne and Penn. cases (Newman/Hopkins) create a new right that should apply | Commonwealth: Alleyne is not retroactive to sentences final before decision | Court: Under Washington/Teague, Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral cases; Nelson not entitled to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA is the exclusive vehicle for state collateral relief)
- Yarris v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA subsumes prior common-law collateral remedies)
- Johnson v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 841 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for after-discovered-evidence PCRA exception)
- Marshall v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (after-discovered-facts exception focuses on facts, not new sources)
- Watts v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (a judicial opinion is not after-discovered evidence for PCRA timeliness)
- Washington v. Commonwealth, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding mandatory minimums tied to facts increasing mandatory sentence must be found by jury)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)