Com. v. Siluk, M., Jr.
1887 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- In Sept. 2001 Michael Siluk was convicted after trial of multiple sexual- and assault-related offenses; the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 621 to 1,260 months in 2003.
- Siluk pursued multiple post-conviction challenges. The Superior Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed his direct appeal; his conviction became final in April 2005.
- Over the years Siluk filed several PCRA petitions and other post-conviction motions arguing, among other things, that the trial court had imposed illegal flat 10-year sentences on three counts and that those should be 10–10 rather than corrected to 10–20 under § 9714.
- The trial court and DOC treated the flat 10-year entries as clerical errors and corrected them to mandatory 10–20 terms; Siluk’s mandamus petition to compel a 10–10 recalculation was dismissed by the Commonwealth Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- On Aug. 6, 2015 Siluk filed a petition titled “clarification of sentence,” again challenging the DOC’s 10–20 correction; the PCRA court dismissed it without a hearing as untimely, and Siluk appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Siluk) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Siluk’s 2015 petition is cognizable outside the PCRA time bar | The change from flat 10-year to 10–20 sentences was illegal and must be corrected to 10–10; relief available despite prior petitions | The petition is a collateral challenge to sentence and thus governed by the PCRA time limits | Petition is a PCRA claim and subject to PCRA time bar; treated as PCRA petition |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to entertain the 2015 petition | Court may clarify/correct sentence now to effect 10–10 recalculation | Petition was filed nine years after the one-year PCRA deadline; court lacks jurisdiction absent an exception | Court lacked jurisdiction because petition was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) |
| Whether any statutory exception to the one-year limit applies (interference, new facts, new constitutional right) | Siluk implicitly argued illegality supports review; suggested Alleyne-type challenge | Commonwealth: no government interference or newly discovered facts; Alleyne not shown to apply retroactively | No applicable exception; Siluk did not show (i)-(ii); (iii) fails because Alleyne is not retroactive to untimely PCRA petitions |
| Procedural compliance with Rule 907 notice before dismissal | Siluk objected to failure to issue Rule 907 notice | Commonwealth noted procedural defects were waived if not raised on appeal | Failure to issue Rule 907 notice was not raised on appeal and thus waived; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (post-conviction claims cognizable only under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (illegal-sentence claims asserted after prior PCRA petitions are treated as PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PCRA petitions, including second or subsequent, must be timely)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an untimely PCRA petition)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury; not held retroactive for collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to raise Rule 907 notice issue on appeal waives the claim)