Com. v. Richburg, R.
1131 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Richburg pled guilty in 2010 to multiple charges and was sentenced on June 30, 2010 to an aggregate term of 20–40 years plus 5–10 years probation.
- He filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 3, 2016 challenging his convictions and sentence; counsel was appointed and then filed a Turner/Finley letter seeking to withdraw.
- The PCRA court notified Richburg of its intent to dismiss and granted counsel's withdrawal; the petition was dismissed on June 29, 2016. Richburg filed a pro se objection and then appealed.
- Richburg argued his petition was timely under the PCRA's 60‑day filing rule following Commonwealth v. Hopkins and that Alleyne announced a retroactive substantive rule invalidating mandatory minimum enhancements.
- The Commonwealth and the PCRA court treated the petition as facially untimely because Richburg’s judgment of sentence became final on July 30, 2010, and his April 2016 petition fell outside the one‑year PCRA filing period.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing, concluding Alleyne/Hopkins do not apply retroactively to permit relief and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne/Hopkins create a new constitutional right that applies retroactively to permit PCRA relief | Richburg: Alleyne (and Hopkins) announced a substantive rule entitling him to retroactive collateral relief; he filed within 60 days of Hopkins | Commonwealth: Alleyne and Hopkins do not apply retroactively to collateral attacks on mandatory minimums; petition is untimely | Court: Alleyne/Hopkins do not apply retroactively here; petition is untimely and jurisdictionally barred |
| Whether the petition was timely under PCRA exceptions (filed within 60 days of discovery of new right) | Richburg: Filed within 60 days of Hopkins (June 2015 decision) | Commonwealth: Hopkins is not a new constitutional right for retroactivity; even if treated as newly discovered, Richburg did not meet 60‑day requirement | Court: Timeliness exception not satisfied; petition facially untimely |
| Whether an illegal‑sentence claim can be considered despite PCRA time bar via court's inherent power | Richburg: Trial/PCRA court always retains jurisdiction to correct illegal or unconstitutional sentences | Commonwealth: Legality claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits or exceptions | Court: Illegality-of-sentence claims are subject to PCRA timeliness; no jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on timeliness/tolling questions (e.g., mailbox rule) | Richburg: Asserted filings were timely under prisoner mailbox rule | Commonwealth: Record insufficient; but remand unnecessary because no relief warranted | Court: No genuine material facts requiring a hearing; dismissal without hearing appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (applied Alleyne principles at state level)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review for mandatory minimums)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (judicial opinions are not "facts" for newly‑discovered facts exception)
- Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170 (Pa. Super. 2001) (prisoner mailbox rule for pro se prison filings)