Com. v. Rexroth, W.
Com. v. Rexroth, W. No. 1950 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- William Eugene Rexroth pleaded guilty on July 9, 2015 to multiple first-degree burglary counts, conspiracy, and a firearms-possession count; aggregate sentence 8–20 years (concurrent on burglary counts, consecutive on firearms count).
- No direct appeal was filed; judgment became final August 10, 2015. PCRA petition was filed September 19, 2016.
- PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). Appellant appealed; appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw.
- Appellant argued his mandatory minimum sentence was illegal under Alleyne (and Hopkins), claimed PCRA timeliness, and alleged ineffective assistance by prior counsel regarding the plea and sentencing.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal procedures and whether any timeliness exception applied; it concluded counsel complied and that the PCRA petition was untimely with no applicable exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rexroth) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | PCRA was timely or exceptions apply (Alleyne/Hopkins or newly discovered facts) | Petition filed after one‑year deadline; no timely invocation of statutory exceptions | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Alleyne-based challenge to mandatory minimums | Mandatory minimums are illegal under Alleyne (and Hopkins) | Alleyne/Hopkins are not newly discovered facts; petitioner untimely under §9545(b) | Alleyne/Hopkins do not save untimely petition; claims fail as untimely |
| Ineffective assistance re: guilty plea/sentencing (conflict, discovery, advising) | Counsel failed to explain plea, had conflict of interest, withheld discovery, delayed PCRA filing | Claims were raised in untimely PCRA and thus not addressed on merits | Claims not reached because PCRA petition was time‑barred |
| Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Turner/Finley compliance) | Counsel filed no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw complying with Turner/Finley | Court must verify technical compliance and independently review merits | Counsel satisfied Turner/Finley requirements; withdrawal permitted after court review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (elaboration on Turner no‑merit letter practice)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (applied Alleyne to strike certain mandatory minimum sentencing provisions)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial decisions are not "newly discovered facts" for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional effect of PCRA timeliness requirements)