Com. v. Ramos, J.
1974 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2017Background
- Jorge Luis Ramos-Ayala was convicted after a bench trial of offenses related to corrupt organizations and heroin distribution and sentenced to an aggregate 7.5 to 15 years imprisonment.
- He rejected a Commonwealth plea offer that included a 40-month minimum and no specified maximum.
- Ramos-Ayala filed a timely pro se first PCRA petition in September 2013; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and the petition was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal in January 2015.
- He filed a second PCRA petition on April 12, 2016, raising (1) a timeliness exception based on alleged newly discovered misconduct by Philadelphia police officers, (2) an Alleyne-based challenge to mandatory minimum sentencing under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508, and (3) a claim that a prior conviction used for his prior record score had been set aside.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on June 8, 2016; Ramos-Ayala appealed pro se and this Court affirmed, concluding the petition was untimely and no exception to the PCRA time bar was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence of police wrongdoing satisfies the PCRA timeliness exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Ramos-Ayala argued officer arrests in 2014 were newly discovered and justify equitable tolling | Commonwealth/PCRA court: claim not pled in the petition and information was publicly available well before filing; cannot be raised first on appeal | Denied — claim not considered; petitioner failed to plead/prove the exception and cannot raise it for first time on appeal |
| Whether mandatory-minimum statute § 7508 is unconstitutional as-applied under Alleyne | Ramos-Ayala contended Alleyne invalidates mandatory minimums applied to him because facts increasing minimums must be found beyond reasonable doubt | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; Alleyne-based claims in untimely petitions are barred | Denied — Alleyne does not retroactively invalidate his sentence in collateral review; claim untimely |
| Whether his aggregate sentence requires correction because a prior conviction used for scoring/triggering § 7508 was later set aside | Ramos-Ayala argued vacatur of the prior drug conviction undermines his prior record score and mandatory minimum enhancement | Commonwealth: petitioner failed to show a timely exception; vacatur does not retroactively salvage an untimely PCRA claim | Denied — untimely; petitioner did not meet § 9545 exceptions |
| Jurisdictional effect of PCRA time bar | Ramos-Ayala sought collateral review despite filing outside one-year period | Commonwealth maintained the filing deadline is jurisdictional and strictly construed | Held —PCR A court lacked jurisdiction to address merits because petition was untimely and no exception proved |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne does not invalidate mandatory minimums in untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence reviewable on PCRA only if petition meets timeliness requirements)