Com. v. Rivera, N., Jr.
Com. v. Rivera, N., Jr. No. 1364 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Noel Carlos Rivera pleaded guilty in 2001 to seven robberies, one aggravated assault, and one resisting arrest; he received an aggregate sentence of 20–40 years that invoked Pennsylvania’s mandatory-minimum firearms statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712(a).
- Rivera’s judgment became final in April 2002; he filed multiple prior PCRA petitions; the instant (fourth) PCRA petition was filed March 17, 2016.
- Rivera invoked the PCRA timeliness exception for a newly recognized constitutional right (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)), relying on Montgomery v. Louisiana and arguing Alleyne and Pennsylvania cases (e.g., Valentine) rendered his mandatory portion unconstitutional.
- The trial court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely because Rivera neither met the one-year filing requirement nor the 60-day filing requirement for a statutory exception.
- The court concluded Montgomery was inapplicable (Rivera was an adult and not sentenced for homicide), and that Alleyne and Pennsylvania progeny (Valentine) have not been held to apply retroactively in Rivera’s circumstances.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal, adopting its reasoning that Rivera failed to invoke a timeliness exception and the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery’s retroactivity extends beyond juvenile homicide mandatory‑LWOP cases | Montgomery announces a retroactive substantive rule that should enable Rivera to obtain relief even though he is an adult and not a homicide offender | Montgomery applies only to Miller juvenile‑LWOP context and is inapplicable to Rivera | Montgomery is inapplicable because Rivera was an adult and not sentenced for homicide; no relief under Montgomery |
| Whether Alleyne (and Pennsylvania cases applying it) creates a new constitutional right that excuses the PCRA time bar under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Alleyne requires facts increasing mandatory minimums be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; Montgomery makes related doctrines retroactive | Alleyne has not been held retroactive by U.S. or Pa. Sup. Ct.; Superior Court precedent treats Alleyne as not creating a § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Alleyne and its Pennsylvania progeny do not establish a timeliness exception; Rivera’s petition is time‑barred |
| Whether Commonwealth v. Valentine (and similar PA decisions declaring mandatory statutes unconstitutional) triggers retroactive relief | Valentine’s invalidation of aspects of § 9712 should allow collateral relief | Valentine was not held to apply retroactively; even if it were, it is not a substantive or watershed rule warranting retroactivity | Valentine does not qualify as a substantive or watershed rule for retroactive collateral relief; it does not overcome the PCRA time bar |
| Whether Rivera filed within 60 days of the date his claimed new‑rule claims could have been presented | Rivera contends Montgomery or related cases supply a recent trigger for the 60‑day rule | The relevant decisions (Alleyne, Valentine, Montgomery) predate Rivera’s 2016 petition by more than 60 days | Even assuming a new‑rule exception existed, Rivera did not file within the 60‑day window, so the petition remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (held Miller’s rule regarding juvenile mandatory life without parole is substantive and retroactive on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (held any fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (addressed Alleyne’s retroactivity in Pennsylvania and noted Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (held Alleyne did not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) as a newly recognized right for retroactivity purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reiterated that Alleyne and related rulings do not create a timeliness exception for collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (invalidated portions of § 9712 as unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (discussed severability and held invalidation of mandatory minimum did not create a watershed procedural rule meriting retroactivity)