Com. v. Rayford, J.
3249 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Jason R. Rayford was convicted after a six-day jury trial of multiple counts arising from four bank robberies occurring between Sept. 30, 2006 and Mar. 3, 2007; the dockets were consolidated.
- He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment composed of four mandatory minimums (10–20 years each), two running consecutively and two concurrently; sentence was modified post‑sentence on Mar. 2, 2009.
- Direct appeal was denied by the Superior Court (Feb. 17, 2010), Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance (Sept. 16, 2010); judgment of sentence became final Dec. 15, 2010 (expiration of time to seek U.S. certiorari).
- Rayford filed three PCRA petitions: first (Sept. 9, 2011) dismissed; second (Oct. 27, 2014) dismissed as untimely; third (Aug. 24, 2015) challenged mandatory minimums under Alleyne but was dismissed as untimely by the PCRA court (Sept. 30, 2015).
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Rayford’s third PCRA petition was filed well after the one‑year filing deadline and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to revive the timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Rayford’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rayford’s untimely PCRA petition is saved by Alleyne as a ‘‘new constitutional right’’ under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Alleyne invalidated mandatory‑minimum factfinding by judge; his sentence is illegal and Alleyne creates a new constitutional right allowing collateral review | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before Alleyne; PCRA time bar remains | Petition untimely; Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review, so exception does not apply |
| Whether judicial decisions can be treated as ‘‘newly discovered facts’’ under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) to excuse the PCRA time bar | Alleyne (and related decisions) constitute newly discovered grounds to challenge sentence | Judicial opinions are not ‘‘facts’’ for § 9545(b)(1)(ii); exception unavailable | Court rejects treating judicial opinions as newly discovered facts |
| Whether legality‑of‑sentence claims are exempt from PCRA timeliness | His challenge to mandatory minimums concerns sentence legality and therefore should be reviewable regardless of timing | Legality claims still must satisfy PCRA timeliness or an exception | Legality claim cannot bypass PCRA time limits; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the late petition | Petition asserts constitutional defect (Alleyne) warranting review | No applicable timeliness exception established; court lacks jurisdiction | PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not satisfy PCRA new‑right exception absent controlling retroactivity from Pa. or U.S. Supreme Court)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)