Com. v. Reveron, C.
283 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Carlos Reveron had probation and parole revoked after repeated violations and was resentenced to 20–40 years based on recidivism and public-safety concerns.
- Original case disposition affirmed on direct appeal; judgment of sentence became final August 15, 2011.
- Reveron filed a pro se second PCRA petition (April 7, 2015) claiming his sentence violated Alleyne v. United States.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as facially untimely under the PCRA.
- Reveron argued his claim could not be waived (illegal sentence) and relied on Commonwealth v. Barnes; he also argued Alleyne created a newly recognized constitutional right.
- The PCRA court denied relief; appellate court affirmed, finding Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review and no mandatory minimum based on judge-found facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Alleyne-based illegal-sentence claim is non-waivable so petition should not be dismissed as untimely | Petition is facially untimely under PCRA; Alleyne claim does not avoid time-bar | Petition untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Alleyne retroactivity to collateral review | Alleyne announces a substantive rule that applies to his case | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral review of final sentences | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; no relief |
| Whether Barnes supports tolling/timeliness | Barnes supports his challenge despite PCRA time-bar | Barnes was a direct-appeal decision and does not affect PCRA jurisdiction | Barnes is inapplicable; it was a direct-appeal case |
| Existence of mandatory minimum based on judge-found facts | Sentence imposed was a mandatory minimum based on facts not found by a jury | Record shows initial intermediate punishment; resentencing increased term for violations/recidivism, not a judge-imposed mandatory minimum | No indication a mandatory minimum was imposed; claim lacks support |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge discretionary aspects | Prior counsel failed to raise discretionary-sentencing challenges | Discretionary-sentencing challenge was addressed on direct appeal; claim is frivolous | Ineffectiveness claim denied as meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness and waiver principles under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (decision on direct appeal; not a PCRA retroactivity ruling)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (holding Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. King, 999 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discussing finality for PCRA timeliness)