Com. v. Ross, S.
120 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- Shawn A. Ross was convicted by a jury on August 13, 1998 of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 9.5–19 years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2000.
- Ross did not seek certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court; his judgment of sentence became final on August 23, 2000.
- On October 2, 2015 Ross filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief, which the PCRA court treated as a sixth PCRA petition and dismissed as untimely for lack of jurisdiction.
- Ross principally argued his sentence was illegal under Alleyne v. United States (jury must find facts that increase mandatory minimums), seeking resentencing and asserting equal protection and habeas availability claims.
- The PCRA court held Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review and Ross failed to plead any statutory exception to the one-year PCRA time bar (and did not file within 60 days of Alleyne).
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction because the petition was untimely and none of the statutory exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ross) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdiction under PCRA | Ross sought habeas relief; argued sentence illegal under Alleyne so time-bar should not apply | PCRA procedure governs collateral relief; petition filed >15 years after finality and is facially untimely | PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; petition dismissed as untimely |
| Retroactivity of Alleyne | Alleyne renders sentence unconstitutional and entitles Ross to relief | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Alleyne is not retroactive; does not rescue Ross's untimely petition |
| 60-day filing requirement for new constitutional rule | Ross did not timely invoke Alleyne-based claim | Even if Alleyne applied, petition was filed well beyond 60 days of Alleyne decision | Ross failed to satisfy the 60-day requirement; claim untimely |
| Availability of habeas corpus outside PCRA | Ross argued habeas remains available and PCRA cannot bar relief when it lacks jurisdiction | Habeas corpus and similar remedies are subsumed by the PCRA as the sole means for collateral relief | Habeas claim is subsumed by PCRA; Ross cannot bypass PCRA time limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements requiring jury finding)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne not applied retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (confirming Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims on collateral review still must satisfy PCRA time limits)