Com. v. Pinkney, V.
1091 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Vincent W. Pinkney was convicted by jury of involuntary manslaughter and robbery in 1996 and received an aggregate 7–25 year sentence (including a five-year mandatory minimum for robbery).
- Direct appeals concluded in 1999; judgment of sentence became final November 17, 1999.
- Pinkney filed multiple PCRA petitions: a timely first petition (1999) denied on the merits, two subsequent petitions (2003, 2005) found untimely, and the present (fourth) petition filed September 17, 2013.
- The 2013 petition challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under Alleyne v. United States and Commonwealth v. Newman, arguing those holdings (or facial invalidity of the statute) required resentencing.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2013 petition as untimely; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Pinkney's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne/Newman create a new, retroactive constitutional right excusing an untimely PCRA petition | Alleyne announced a substantive rule requiring jury findings for facts that increase penalty; Newman applied Alleyne to Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum statutes; these should apply retroactively to vacate the mandatory minimum | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before Alleyne; petitioner’s judgment became final in 1999, so Alleyne/Newman cannot relieve the PCRA time-bar | Petition is untimely; Alleyne/Newman not retroactive here; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a legality-of-sentence claim (Alleyne-based) avoids PCRA timeliness requirements | A claim attacking the legality of sentence cannot be defeated by the PCRA time-bar | Legality-of-sentence issues still must be raised in a timely PCRA petition or satisfy a statutory exception | Legality claims are subject to PCRA timeliness; petitioner failed to satisfy exceptions; claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases penalty must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (applied Alleyne to invalidate Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum sentencing provision at issue)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (Alleyne does not satisfy PCRA timeliness exception absent a court holding retroactivity)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (en banc) (Alleyne applies only to cases pending on direct review as of its decision date; not retroactive for collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied Alleyne to invalidate another mandatory-minimum statute and discussed severability)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence issues must still satisfy PCRA time limits)