Com. v. Nolt, M.
Com. v. Nolt, M. No. 1755 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 10, 2017Background
- Mark A. Nolt pleaded guilty on March 14, 2013 to multiple drug offenses (PWID heroin and oxycodone) and received an aggregate sentence of 5–10 years; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Nolt’s judgment of sentence became final on April 15, 2013 (expiration of time to file a direct appeal).
- On August 24, 2015 Nolt filed a pro se PCRA petition (his first), asserting among other claims that his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and Hopkins; counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCRA alleging trial counsel failed to file a requested direct appeal.
- The Commonwealth answered; the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing on September 23, 2016 as untimely.
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw; this Court conducted independent review, granted withdrawal, and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely | Nolt argued his sentence was illegal under Alleyne/Hopkins and raised ineffective assistance for failure to file a direct appeal | Commonwealth argued the petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final and no timeliness exception applies | Petition was untimely; no exception proven; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Alleyne/related authority provides a timeliness exception | Nolt invoked Alleyne/Hopkins to trigger §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth noted Alleyne decision was June 17, 2013 and petitioner filed after the 60‑day window; Hopkins does not create a new, retroactive rule for §9545(b)(1)(iii) purposes | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on PCRA review here; petitioner failed to file within 60 days; exception rejected |
| Whether counsel’s alleged failure to file a direct appeal saved timeliness | Nolt claimed counsel failed to file a requested direct appeal | Commonwealth and court required pleading/proof that claim was raised within 60 days of when it could be presented | Nolt did not plead/prove filing within 60 days of discovery; exception not satisfied |
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal requirements | N/A (procedural) | Counsel filed a no‑merit letter, detailed review, served client, and advised of rights | Counsel complied with Turner/Finley; PCRA court and this Court performed independent review; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (Turner/Finley no‑merit and counsel withdrawal procedure requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality‑of‑sentence review subject to PCRA timeliness rules)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (60‑day period for invoking newly recognized constitutional right begins on the date of the decision)