Com. v. Richard, T.
Com. v. Richard, T. No. 327 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Thomas P. Richard, Sr. was convicted by a jury in 2000 of rape and related offenses involving his daughter and sentenced to an aggregate term of 25½ to 51 years, including a mandatory minimum.
- His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2002; the judgment of sentence became final November 25, 2002.
- Richard filed multiple prior PCRA petitions; the instant filing (his sixth) was pro se on March 18, 2016, nearly 14 years after finality.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss and ultimately denied the petition on January 17, 2017 as untimely and not meeting any statutory exception.
- Richard argued his sentence is illegal under Alleyne and related decisions (invoking Montgomery/Welch) and sought retroactive application of Pennsylvania decisions (Wolfe, Newman) to overcome the PCRA time bar.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Richard’s petition was untimely and that the cited Supreme Court and Pennsylvania decisions did not render his claim timely or applicable on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Richard: Sixth PCRA was timely under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) because recent Supreme Court rulings (Montgomery/Welch) and Pennsylvania cases (Wolfe/Newman) recognized a new, retroactive constitutional right | Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.: Petition was filed ~14 years after finality and did not satisfy the PCRA time‑bar exceptions; the cited authorities do not render his claim timely | Denied: Petition is patently untimely; no applicable retroactivity exception established |
| Validity of mandatory minimum sentence under Alleyne | Richard: Alleyne (and related authority) means his mandatory-minimum-based sentence is illegal and must be corrected | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to invalidate his sentence; Washington governs that Alleyne is not retroactive | Denied: Alleyne-based challenge cannot overcome PCRA time bar and is not retroactive to his case |
| Applicability of Montgomery/Miller framework | Richard: Montgomery and Miller establish retroactive rules that should affect his sentence | Commonwealth: Montgomery/Miller concern juvenile LWOP; Richard was not a juvenile and was not sentenced to mandatory LWOP | Denied: Montgomery/Miller inapplicable to Richard’s circumstances |
| Reliance on Wolfe/Newman to avoid time bar | Richard: Pennsylvania Superior decisions interpreting Alleyne and mandatory minimums support retroactivity | Commonwealth: Wolfe involved direct appeal circumstances post‑Alleyne and is inapposite to collateral, time‑barred claims | Denied: Wolfe/Newman do not afford him relief or bypass the time limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule entitled to retroactive effect on collateral review)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (new rules of constitutional law are retroactive on collateral review when they are substantive)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to mandatory minimum sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 600 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpreted Alleyne in the context of mandatory-minimum sentencing on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (related Superior Court analysis concerning mandatory minima and Alleyne)