241 A.3d 445
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Randy Ramos was arrested in Nov. 2010 on multiple sexual-offense charges; counsel was appointed in March 2011 and informations filed in May 2011 indicating potential mandatory minimum exposure.
- Ramos pleaded no-contest in multiple dockets; the court accepted pleas June 19, 2012, deferred sentencing on one indecent-assault count for an SVP assessment, and entered final sentencing orders on March 10, 2013 (aggregate 10–20 years plus reporting probation).
- Alleyne v. United States was decided June 17, 2013, after Ramos’s judgments became final (appellant did not file a direct appeal); Alleyne later formed the basis of his PCRA claim attacking mandatory minimums.
- Ramos filed pro se PCRA petitions July 5, 2016 (facially untimely); counsel was appointed and amended petitions (Nov. 28, 2017) raising an Alleyne-based illegal-sentence claim and alleging trial-counsel abandonment/ineffectiveness for failing to appeal.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices and dismissed the petitions as untimely on June 11, 2018; Ramos appealed and the Superior Court (after addressing Walker/Johnson procedural issues about notices of appeal) affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Ramos' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petitions | Ramos contends counsel abandoned him and the Alleyne-based illegal-sentence claim excuses untimeliness | Petitions are facially untimely; Alleyne and counsel ineffectiveness do not satisfy PCRA exceptions | Dismissal affirmed: petitions untimely and no applicable statutory exception established |
| Retroactivity of Alleyne | Alleyne renders Ramos’s mandatory-minimum sentence illegal and supports relief | Alleyne was decided after Ramos’s sentence became final and is not retroactive on collateral review | Alleyne not available as §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception (Washington/Miller) |
| Attorney abandonment as a §9545(b)(1)(ii) exception | Trial counsel’s failure to advise/appeal = abandonment that should excuse late filing | Failure to plead facts showing abandonment and lack of due diligence; general ineffectiveness doesn’t excuse timeliness | Abandonment not established; no due-diligence showing; exception fails |
| Procedural sufficiency of notices of appeal (Walker issue) | Ramos filed separate notices of appeal for each docket (though each listed all dockets) | Failure to comply with Walker could require quashal | Appeals not quashed: Johnson precedent shows separate filings here complied with Walker |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal when a single order resolves multiple dockets)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively on collateral review only if higher court so holds)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (counsel abandonment can constitute a previously unknown fact under §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance generally does not overcome PCRA time-bar)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; outlines filing-deadline rules)
- Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 177 A.3d 182 (Pa. 2018) (Alleyne-based relief available only if judgment not final when Alleyne announced)