Com. v. Pitts, D.
Com. v. Pitts, D. No. 2124 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Daryl Pitts was convicted by jury in 1999 of burglary, theft, and robbery and sentenced to 30–60 years imprisonment; direct review concluded in 2001.
- Pitts filed multiple Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petitions: first in 2001 (dismissed and appealed), second in 2013 (untimely), third in 2015 (untimely, not appealed), and the instant fourth petition in March 2016.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the March 23, 2016 petition as untimely on June 21, 2016; Pitts appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- Pitts argued his petition fit the PCRA time‑bar exception for newly recognized constitutional rights under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), asserting Montgomery v. Louisiana caused Alleyne to be retroactively applicable.
- The Superior Court held Pitts’s judgment of sentence became final July 15, 2001, so any PCRA petition was due by July 15, 2002; the 2016 petition was plainly untimely and no retroactivity exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pitts’s 2016 PCRA petition is timely or saved by a newly recognized constitutional right under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Montgomery’s recognition of Miller’s retroactivity mandates retroactive application of Alleyne, creating a new constitutional right that excuses the time bar | Alleyne has not been held retroactive; Montgomery concerned Miller only; Pennsylvania precedent holds Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review | Petition untimely; Pitts failed to prove a § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception, so PCRA court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (held Miller’s rule is substantive and retroactive on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (held facts increasing mandatory minimums are elements requiring jury finding)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (held mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness is jurisdictional; merits require timeliness or exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses finality and PCRA timeliness principles)