Com. v. Robinson, J.
260 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Julius Lamar Robinson pleaded guilty (Sept. 2012) to corrupt organizations, two counts possession with intent to deliver, and eight counts delivery of cocaine; sentenced to eight concurrent 4–10 year terms for the delivery counts. No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed.
- Robinson later sought relief to obtain RRRI eligibility; that motion was denied and treated as a first PCRA petition in 2015.
- Robinson filed a subsequent pro se motion (treated as a second PCRA petition) challenging his sentence as illegal under Alleyne and seeking vacation or modification of his sentence; the trial court denied that petition on Jan. 14, 2016.
- The trial court also found Robinson’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement vague and inadequate, limiting the court’s ability to respond; the court nonetheless identified an Alleyne-based illegal-sentence claim.
- The sentencing order indicated no mandatory minimum was actually applied; additionally, Robinson’s petition was facially untimely and he did not plead a PCRA timeliness exception.
- The Superior Court affirmed: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to cases with final judgments, and Robinson’s untimely petition did not satisfy a PCRA exception (thus no relief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne announces a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to vacate a mandatory-minimum sentence | Robinson: Alleyne announced a substantive constitutional rule that should be applied retroactively to his case | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; petitioner’s PCRA filing is untimely and he alleges no exception | Denied — Alleyne not retroactive to cases with final judgment; petition untimely and no exception shown |
| Whether Robinson’s appeal is preserved given a defective Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement | Robinson: filed a Concise Statement (though unfocused) seeking relief | Trial Ct: Statement is too vague to permit meaningful review; failure to adequately identify issues warrants dismissal | Trial court’s view upheld as to vagueness; appellate court nonetheless discerned an Alleyne-based claim but rejected it on merits/timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne not retroactively applicable on collateral review to cases with final judgments)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (confirming retroactivity/Alleyne guidance in Pennsylvania collateral-review context)
- Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PCRA is the exclusive vehicle for collateral challenges to sentence legality)
- Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Concise Statement must identify issues with sufficient clarity for meaningful review)