Com. v. Spadafora, M.
1412 MDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 19, 2016Background:
- Michael Spadafora pleaded guilty in 2009 to corrupt organizations, delivery and manufacture of methamphetamine, and a firearms violation; sentenced to 8–20 years under the mandatory minimum in 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a) based on 2000 grams of methamphetamine.
- Direct review concluded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on September 26, 2011; judgment became final December 25, 2011 (certiorari period expired).
- Spadafora filed a first counseled PCRA petition in January 2012; it was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- On June 2, 2014 Spadafora filed a second counseled PCRA petition asserting that Alleyne v. United States invalidated the mandatory minimum applied to him and that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea or receive resentencing.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2014 petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed because Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases already final.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Spadafora argued his Alleyne-based claim excuses the PCRA time bar (submitted June 2, 2014). | Commonwealth argued the petition was untimely (judgment final Dec. 25, 2011) and no timeliness exception applied. | Petition untimely; PCRA court and Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits. |
| Retroactivity of Alleyne and legality of sentence | Spadafora argued Alleyne announced a new constitutional rule that renders § 7508(a) unconstitutional and applies to his case, so his sentence is illegal and nonwaivable. | Commonwealth argued Alleyne does not apply retroactively and therefore cannot overcome the PCRA time bar. | Alleyne is not retroactive to cases whose judgments were final before Alleyne; Spadafora’s claim fails the after-discovered-right exception. |
| Procedural irregularity re: Statement of Questions Involved | Spadafora included a different issue in his Pa.R.A.P. 2116 statement (voluntariness of plea tied to unrelated allegation) but argued Alleyne in the brief. | Commonwealth noted the inconsistency and contested the irrelevant factual assertion. | Court declined to penalize Spadafora for the mismatch as legality-of-sentence claims (like Alleyne) are reviewable despite technical defects, but the time-bar jurisdictional defect remained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (mandatory-minimum–triggering facts must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. 2015) (held § 7508(a) unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (held Alleyne does not apply retroactively)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (finality date after denial of allowance of appeal; timeliness calculation)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits or an exception)