Com. v. Strother, A.
1260 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- In December 2011 a woman reported that Strother sexually penetrated her while she was sleeping; police investigation followed.
- Strother pled guilty on October 2, 2013 to rape of an unconscious victim and sexual assault and was sentenced to 6–20 years' imprisonment; he was informed he must register under SORNA and the court ordered an SVP assessment.
- Counsel did not file a post-sentence or direct appeal; Strother was adjudicated an SVP on January 24, 2014.
- Strother filed a pro se PCRA petition on December 3, 2015 challenging the legality of his sentence under Alleyne v. United States.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss as untimely; the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, dismissed the petition as untimely on March 4, 2016, and granted appointed counsel’s Turner/Finley request to withdraw.
- Strother appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not correcting an illegal sentence; the Superior Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the PCRA petition was untimely and no statutory exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Strother argued his Alleyne-based challenge renders his sentence illegal and reviewable | Commonwealth argued petition filed more than one year after judgment became final and no §9545 exception pleaded | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed petition |
| Alleyne retroactivity on collateral review | Strother relied on Alleyne to attack mandatory-minimum sentencing | Commonwealth and Pennsylvania precedent: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review | Alleyne not retroactive for collateral attacks (petition cannot rely on it to overcome timeliness bar) |
| Illegal-sentence exception to time bar | Strother argued illegality of sentence cannot be waived and is always reviewable | Commonwealth pointed to Fahy and PCRA timeliness requirements | Illegality claim still subject to PCRA time limits; must plead an exception to overcome time bar |
| Effect of SVP finding on finality | Strother implied judgment was final prior to SVP process | Commonwealth noted the SVP finding occurred post-sentence; under governing rules finality timing matters | Even considering SVP timing, petition was filed outside one-year window and remained untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness jurisdictional; limits on invoking newly-recognized rights)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are subject to PCRA time limits/exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Schrader, 141 A.3d 558 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses finality timing where SVP determinations interact with appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)