Com. v. Pelzer, C.
Com. v. Pelzer, C. No. 1927 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Caine Sheppard Pelzer was convicted by a jury of 22 offenses arising from a February 17, 2001 home invasion and was sentenced on April 15, 2002 to an aggregate term of 22 to 44 years, the longer term reflecting application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 mandatory-minimum firearm enhancements.
- Pelzer’s direct appeal was affirmed on May 7, 2003; his judgment of sentence became final on June 6, 2003 (no petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court).
- Pelzer filed a first PCRA petition in 2008 (acknowledging it was untimely); the PCRA court denied relief in 2013 and this Court affirmed in 2014.
- On February 20, 2016 Pelzer filed a second PCRA petition arguing his sentence is illegal under Alleyne and related authorities and claiming those decisions are retroactive; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on November 2, 2016.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether it had jurisdiction (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional) and whether any timeliness exception applied; it held the petition was facially untimely and that the cited authorities did not make Alleyne retroactive for collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Pelzer’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pelzer’s § 9712 mandatory-minimum sentence is illegal under Alleyne and related cases, entitling him to relief | Alleyne (and cases Pelzer cites) recognized a constitutional rule invalidating mandatory-minimum sentencing enhancements and should be applied retroactively to his case | The Alleyne rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review; therefore Pelzer’s petition is untimely and not saved by a retroactivity exception | Petition is untimely; Alleyne does not apply retroactively for PCRA purposes, so no relief |
| Whether Pelzer’s petition falls within a PCRA timeliness exception (newly-recognized constitutional right) | Montgomery and other recent Supreme Court decisions render Alleyne retroactive, so Pelzer’s petition (filed within 60 days of Montgomery) is timely under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Montgomery addressed Miller’s retroactivity, not Alleyne; Pennsylvania precedent holds Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review | Timeliness exception not satisfied; petition dismissed as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be submitted to a jury)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (holding Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles is retroactive)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (prohibiting mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressing Section 9712 and Alleyne implications)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness requirements of the PCRA and availability of collateral review for legality-of-sentence claims)