Com. v. Singletary, C.
382 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Christopher Singletary was convicted in 1994 of robbery, burglary, conspiracy, and a firearms offense; sentenced in 1995 to 47½ to 95 years, in part under mandatory minimum statute 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712(a).
- Direct appeal was resolved in 1996. Singletary filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; his fifth pro se PCRA petition was filed July 30, 2015.
- The 2015 petition challenged the legality of his mandatory‑minimum sentence in light of Alleyne and Pennsylvania decisions construing mandatory minimums as unconstitutional.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely under the PCRA statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545), finding no pleaded or proven exception to the one‑year time bar.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and that claims of sentence illegality do not excuse untimeliness absent a recognized, retroactive exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Singletary may obtain relief for an "illegal" mandatory‑minimum sentence despite an untimely PCRA petition | Singletary: Alleyne and related state decisions render the mandatory‑minimum statute void ab initio, so the time‑bar is null and he may obtain relief | Commonwealth/PCRA court: PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; sentence‑legality claims do not bypass timeliness except via a statutory exception properly pled and timely invoked | Held: Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction. Sentence illegality does not excuse PCRA time bar absent a recognized retroactive exception properly pleaded and filed within 60 days |
| Whether Alleyne (and its state applications) operates retroactively to permit collateral relief here | Singletary: argues mandatory minimums are void from enactment (effectively retroactive) | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review; petitioner did not invoke the §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception timely | Held: Alleyne does not supply a retroactive basis for relief in this case; petitioner failed to plead §9545(b)(1)(iii) within 60 days |
| Whether a claim of sentence illegality is itself an exception to the PCRA timeliness rules | Singletary: contends illegality of statute defeats the PCRA time bar | Commonwealth: illegality claims do not negate PCRA jurisdictional time limits | Held: Illegality claims do not excuse untimeliness; petitioner must meet statutory exceptions |
| Whether petitioner satisfied the §9545(b)(1)(iii) 60‑day requirement after Alleyne | Singletary: did not rely on retroactivity but argued broader nullity | Commonwealth: petitioner filed in 2015, well beyond 60 days after Alleyne (June 17, 2013) | Held: §9545(b)(2) 60‑day requirement not satisfied; petition barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (state court decisions addressing mandatory minimums post‑Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (application of Alleyne to Pennsylvania mandatory minimum statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Grafton, 928 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sentence illegality claims do not avoid PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne not held to apply retroactively by Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court for collateral review)