Com. v. Reis, K.
1293 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Kevin Lyle Reis pled guilty in 2010 to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and being a person not to possess firearms for repeatedly sexually abusing his then-17‑year‑old daughter and admitting to possessing firearms as a felon.
- The trial court sentenced Reis to an aggregate 10–20 years’ imprisonment and classified him as a Sexually Violent Predator in December 2010.
- Reis discontinued his timely direct appeal in March 2011; his judgment of sentence became final on March 17, 2011.
- Reis filed a first PCRA petition that the court granted in part in 2013, but his subsequent motion to reconsider was denied.
- Reis filed a second PCRA petition on August 17, 2015, asserting his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and related Pennsylvania decisions; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely on March 7, 2016.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Reis’s second PCRA petition was facially untimely, he failed to plead any statutory exception, and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to permit relief here.
Issues
| Issue | Reis's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne announced a substantive new rule that requires retroactive application to render Reis’s sentence illegal | Alleyne (and Hopkins) created a new substantive constitutional rule that applies retroactively and invalidates the sentencing practice | Alleyne/Hopkins do not render Reis’s sentence illegal here; Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review | Court: Alleyne does not entitle Reis to relief; no retroactive application permits his untimely petition |
| Whether Reis’s petition was timely under the PCRA due to Alleyne/Hopkins | Reis filed within 60 days of learning of Hopkins (or Alleyne-based decisions) so petition is timely under the §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Reis’s judgment became final in 2011; he filed in 2015, well beyond the 1‑year limit and beyond the 60‑day window for the Alleyne exception | Court: Petition is facially untimely; Reis failed to file within one year and did not meet the 60‑day exception period |
| Whether the sentencing challenged involved mandatory minimums (making Alleyne relevant) | Alleyne affects mandatory-minimum sentencing and therefore applies to Reis’s sentence | The trial court did not impose any mandatory minimums as part of Reis’s negotiated plea, so Alleyne is not implicated | Court: Alleyne is inapplicable because no mandatory minimums were imposed |
| Whether the PCRA court retained inherent jurisdiction to correct an allegedly illegal sentence despite timing rules | Reis contends a court always may correct an illegal/patently unconstitutional sentence | Commonwealth: Even legality claims must meet PCRA timeliness rules or an exception; jurisdiction is lacking for untimely petitions | Court: No inherent jurisdiction override; timeliness is jurisdictional and Reis failed to satisfy it |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (concluding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (60‑day filing period for post‑decisional PCRA exceptions begins on the date of the decision)