Com. v. Phillips, J.
1065 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 8, 2016Background
- In 2003 Joseph Lee Phillips was convicted of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a license for a 2001 shooting that resulted in the victim losing a leg; he was sentenced to 17½–35 years.
- Phillips’ direct appeals were unsuccessful; his conviction and sentence became final in May 2005.
- He filed multiple PCRA petitions: a 2005 petition that briefly resulted in an order for a new trial (later reversed on appeal), a 2012 petition denied by the PCRA court (affirmed by this Court), and the instant third PCRA petition filed April 24, 2015.
- The 2015 petition argued, inter alia, that Alleyne v. United States and related decisions require retroactive relief and that his sentence is illegal under the Supremacy Clause and Harper.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely; Phillips appealed, claiming the Alleyne line of cases satisfied the PCRA retroactivity exception.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Phillips’s petition was untimely, Alleyne has not been held retroactive by the U.S. Supreme Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Miller controls rejecting Alleyne for the §9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Phillips argued his third PCRA invoking Alleyne was timely under the §9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception | Commonwealth contended petition was filed over ten years after finality and did not meet any statutory exception | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Retroactive application of Alleyne | Phillips claimed Alleyne announced a new rule that must be applied retroactively to his case under §9545(b)(1)(iii) and the Supremacy Clause | Commonwealth (and controlling Superior Court precedent) argued neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor PA Supreme Court has declared Alleyne retroactive, so §9545 exception not met | Alleyne is not recognized as retroactive by the relevant courts; cannot satisfy §9545(b)(1)(iii) |
| Legality of sentence (Alleyne claim) | Phillips argued Alleyne renders his sentence illegal because facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury | Commonwealth argued timeliness/jurisdictional bar prevents collateral review; even legality claims require jurisdiction | Court acknowledged Alleyne implicates legality but lacked jurisdiction due to untimely PCRA; claim lost on time-bar |
| Supremacy Clause / Harper reliance | Phillips invoked the Supremacy Clause and Harper to require retroactive application | Commonwealth and court noted Harper applies only to cases still open on direct review, which Phillips’s case is not | Supremacy Clause / Harper do not provide relief where direct review has concluded; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1993) (new federal rules apply retroactively only to cases still open on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not satisfy PCRA §9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness requirement and burden on petitioner to plead exceptions)