Com. v. Rodriguez, O.
887 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Osvaldo Rodriguez pleaded guilty in 2007 to third-degree murder and conspiracy; sentenced to 17–35 years and ordered to pay $15,980 restitution, payable jointly and severally with co-defendants but with reduction if co-defendants pay.
- Rodriguez’s direct appeal was dismissed in 2009; his judgment of sentence became final on August 24, 2009.
- In October 2015 Rodriguez filed a pro se challenge to the restitution order; the court treated it as a PCRA petition and appointed counsel.
- Counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; Rodriguez responded citing Alleyne and arguing the restitution sentence was illegal or improperly based on a mandatory-minimum framework.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice to dismiss the petition as untimely; the court concluded Alleyne did not apply because Rodriguez was not subject to a mandatory minimum and that Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review.
- The PCRA petition was dismissed May 4, 2016 for being untimely with no applicable statutory exception; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition challenges restitution; argues merits and reliance on Alleyne justify review | Petition filed well after one-year PCRA limit; no statutory exception pleaded | Dismissed as untimely; no jurisdiction without an exception |
| Applicability of Alleyne | Alleyne announced a new constitutional rule that affects mandatory‑minimum sentencing and should apply | Alleyne inapplicable because Rodriguez did not receive a mandatory minimum; Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review | Alleyne claim fails; cannot rescue untimely petition |
| Legality of restitution order | Restitution was allegedly “open-ended”/illegal and always reviewable collaterally | Legality claims still must satisfy PCRA timeliness or an exception | Illegal‑sentence argument rejected as untimely without an exception |
| Ineffective assistance / counsel’s handling | Counsel raised issues but failed to develop them adequately on PCRA | Procedural time‑bar must be resolved before merits; counsel’s performance does not overcome jurisdictional defect | Claims not reached on merits due to procedural time‑bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (explains PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and lists exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (untimely PCRA petitions must be dismissed absent a statutory exception)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing date)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (legality of sentence claims are subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)