Com. v. Perez, M.
1062 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- Mark A. Perez pleaded guilty in 2011 to aggravated assault, robbery, theft, burglary, and being a person not to possess a firearm; agreed aggregate sentence 15–30 years (structured as 10–20 for robbery, consecutive 5–10 for burglary, concurrent 5–10 for firearms).
- Perez pursued a direct appeal (ended September 13, 2012) and filed two prior untimely PCRA petitions before the instant petition.
- On February 23, 2016 Perez filed a third PCRA petition arguing Alleyne v. United States required retroactive relief, as made retroactive by Montgomery v. Louisiana.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and denied relief as untimely, concluding none of the statutory exceptions to the one-year filing requirement applied.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception (new constitutional right held retroactive) applied and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez's petition is timely under the PCRA exception for a new, retroactive constitutional right | Perez: Montgomery makes Alleyne retroactive; his petition (filed within 60 days of Montgomery) is timely | Commonwealth: Perez was not sentenced under a mandatory minimum; Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; Montgomery applies to Miller-type rules for juveniles, not Alleyne | Held: Petition untimely under PCRA; Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) inapplicable; PCRA relief denied |
| Whether Alleyne applies to Perez's sentence | Perez: Alleyne requires jury findings for facts increasing penalties, so his sentence is illegal | Commonwealth: Alleyne concerns mandatory minimums and facts that increase penalty; Perez received no mandatory minimum | Held: Alleyne inapplicable because Perez was not subject to a mandatory minimum |
| Whether Alleyne is retroactive on collateral review | Perez: Montgomery requires full retroactivity for new substantive rules like Alleyne | Commonwealth: Pennsylvania precedent holds Alleyne is not a new substantive rule entitled to retroactive application on collateral review | Held: Alleyne is not retroactive for final sentences; Montgomery does not change Alleyne’s collateral-applicability in Pennsylvania |
| Whether Montgomery renders Alleyne retroactive via Miller reasoning | Perez: Montgomery made new substantive rules fully retroactive, so Alleyne must apply | Commonwealth: Montgomery concerned Miller juvenile-lifer rule; Pennsylvania decisions have declined to treat Alleyne as retroactive under Montgomery | Held: Montgomery does not require retroactive application of Alleyne to Perez’s final sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (limited retroactivity of Alleyne to cases pending on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply on collateral review to final sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 143 A.3d 418 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness and exceptions framework)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (bar on mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles)