Com. v. Rivas-Rivera, A.
Com. v. Rivas-Rivera, A. No. 518 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Amilcar Rivas‑Rivera pleaded guilty to 54 felonies for a string of 2011 burglaries and was sentenced to an aggregate 15–30 years’ imprisonment on February 12, 2013.
- He did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on April 10, 2013.
- Rivas‑Rivera filed a timely first PCRA petition (Feb. 6, 2014) asserting counsel induced an involuntary plea; relief was denied after a hearing and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- He filed a second PCRA petition on February 1, 2016, claiming (1) counsel ineffectiveness for inducing an illusory plea agreement, (2) counsel failed to fully inform him of options, and (3) a newspaper article constituted newly discovered evidence.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely under the one‑year filing rule and as previously litigated for some claims; Rivas‑Rivera had not invoked a timely statutory exception.
- This Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and noting the newly discovered‑fact claim was not filed within 60 days of discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — plea induced by illusory agreement | Rivas‑Rivera says counsel told him certain charges would be withdrawn if he signed the plea; they were not withdrawn, so plea involuntary | Commonwealth: claim is untimely and was previously litigated | Dismissed as untimely; substantive claim unavailable because PCRA time limits/jurisdictional bars apply |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to inform options | Rivas‑Rivera contends counsel did not inform him he could plead to some charges and go to trial on others | Commonwealth: untimely and previously litigated; merits not reached | Dismissed as untimely/previously litigated |
| Newly discovered evidence — newspaper article | Article discovered Aug. 13, 2015 allegedly qualifies as new fact under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Commonwealth: even if new, petition was not filed within 60 days of discovery as required by §9545(b)(2) | Dismissed — petitioner failed to file within 60 days, so exception not satisfied |
| Jurisdiction/timeliness of second PCRA petition | Rivas‑Rivera contends exceptions apply to render petition timely | Commonwealth: PCRA’s one‑year rule is jurisdictional; no timely exception shown | Court lacks jurisdiction to address merits; petition untimely and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PCRA filing deadline and exceptions explained)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (60‑day requirement to invoke PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (discussion of newly discovered facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Mickens, 597 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 1991) (counsel’s duty to keep accused informed)
- Commonwealth v. Saxton, 532 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1987) (cited for counsel duties and ABA standards)