Com. v. Ruiz, M.
Com. v. Ruiz, M. No. 1276 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 13, 2017Background
- In 1991, Miguel Angel Ruiz killed a car dealer during a test drive; in 1992 he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy in exchange for the Commonwealth not seeking death, and received an aggregate life sentence.
- Ruiz did not file a direct appeal and previously filed three PCRA petitions, all denied or dismissed.
- On May 16, 2016 Ruiz filed his fourth PCRA petition, which the PCRA court dismissed after issuing a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice; Ruiz appealed pro se and filed a concise statement.
- The PCRA petition was facially untimely because Ruiz’s judgment of sentence became final long before the one-year filing requirement expired, and timeliness is jurisdictional under the PCRA.
- Ruiz invoked the Alleyne v. United States rule (as a newly-recognized constitutional right) alleging his sentence was illegal because facts increasing his sentence were not found by a jury.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition because Ruiz’s claim was untimely and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to final sentences; Ruiz also filed well beyond the 60-day window after Alleyne’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ruiz) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Alleyne renders his sentence illegal so timeliness need not block review | Petition is facially untimely under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b) and timeliness is jurisdictional | Dismissed: petition untimely, court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Applicability of Alleyne to Ruiz’s sentence | Alleyne establishes that any fact increasing a sentence must be found by a jury, so his sentence is unconstitutional | Alleyne-based claims must be raised within 60 days of Alleyne and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral review of final sentences | Denied: Alleyne claim untimely and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review |
| 60-day exception for newly-recognized constitutional right | Not pleaded within 60 days of Alleyne (Ruiz filed in 2016) | 60-day filing rule applies; Ruiz filed well after the 60-day period following Alleyne | Denied: exception not satisfied |
| Legality-of-sentence review despite jurisdictional defect | Ruiz contended illegality obviates procedural bars | Courts cannot reach legality claims when they lack jurisdiction due to untimeliness | Denied: court cannot consider legality claim without jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; one-year rule)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase a defendant's mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (60-day period for newly-recognized constitutional rights begins on the date of the decision)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (new constitutional rules are retroactive on collateral review only if the Supreme Court so holds)