Com. v. Shuler, L.
Com. v. Shuler, L. No. 1457 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- Lindsay P. Shuler pled guilty in February 2003 to multiple sexual offenses, including rape of a child under 13, and was sentenced in July 2003 to an aggregate 6–12 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years probation.
- Direct appeal was pursued; this Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on August 9, 2004, making Shuler’s judgment of sentence final on November 7, 2004.
- Shuler filed multiple PCRA petitions between 2005 and 2015, all denied. On July 25, 2016 he filed a pro se “Motion to Vacate Mandatory Sentence, Nunc Pro Tunc,” asserting Alleyne error (challenge to a mandatory minimum under Alleyne).
- The PCRA court denied the petition on August 15, 2016 as untimely; Shuler appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court concluded the petition was untimely under the PCRA time limits and that Alleyne does not satisfy the PCRA’s newly-recognized-constitutional-right timeliness exception as applied retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Shuler's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Alleyne should apply retroactively to Shuler’s case that was pending on appeal when Alleyne was decided | Alleyne should be applied retroactively because his case was still pending on appeal when Alleyne was decided | Alleyne does not render petitioner’s collateral challenge timely; petition is untimely because judgment was final in 2004 | Denied — petition untimely; Alleyne not a basis for retroactive application here |
| 2. Whether the mandatory-minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 is illegal under Alleyne/Newman/Valentine | Mandatory minimum is facially void under Alleyne and related PA decisions; cannot be waived | Even if cognizable, the claim is time-barred under the PCRA absent a recognized timeliness exception | Denied — legality-of-sentence claim not addressed on merits because petition is untimely |
| 3. Whether due process / Sixth Amendment violation occurred by failing to require jury findings on facts increasing sentence | Trial court’s waiver of jury findings violated the Sixth Amendment (right to jury) | Procedural default; untimely collateral attack — merits not reached | Denied — untimely petition forecloses review |
| 4. Whether equal protection was violated by differential treatment in denying relief | Shuler claims equal protection violation in how his motion was treated compared to others | No jurisdiction to consider equal protection claim because petition untimely | Denied — untimely petition; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Abul-Salaam, 812 A.2d 487 (Pa. 2002) (section 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires that a new constitutional right already has been held to apply retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (challenge to a sentence premised on Alleyne implicates legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (judgment of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes ninety days after denial of allowance of appeal)