Com. v. Tadych, L.
Com. v. Tadych, L. No. 179 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Leon Charles Tadych pled guilty on June 6, 2013 to multiple sexual-offense-related counts and was sentenced immediately to 12–24 years’ imprisonment, including a 10-year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.
- He did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final around July 6, 2013 (30 days after sentencing).
- Appellant filed a first PCRA petition on February 4, 2014 (unsuccessful) and a second, pro se PCRA petition on August 22, 2016, asserting his sentence was illegal under Alleyne and Commonwealth v. Wolfe.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter; the court issued Rule 907 notice, permitted counsel to withdraw, and dismissed the petition as untimely on December 29, 2016.
- Appellant appealed; the Superior Court reviewed timeliness and statutory exceptions and affirmed dismissal, holding the petition was time-barred and no exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCRA petition was timely | Tadych argued Alleyne/Wolfe rendered his sentence illegal and supplied a timeliness exception | Commonwealth argued petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final and thus untimely | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Alleyne/Wolfe qualify as a "new constitutional right" under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Tadych claimed Alleyne/Wolfe announced a new right entitling him to relief and triggering the 60-day filing rule | Commonwealth relied on precedent that Alleyne has not been held to apply retroactively by PA or US Supreme Court | Alleyne/Wolfe do not satisfy the retroactivity requirement; exception not met (petition remains time-barred) |
| Whether any other statutory exceptions (governmental interference or new facts) apply | Tadych asserted "governmental interference" because legislature enacted §9718 and cited Wolfe timing to satisfy 60-day rule | Commonwealth cited lack of supporting law; Alleyne/Wolfe are judicial decisions, not "new facts," and Wolfe did not announce a new right for timeliness purposes | Claims rejected: no authority for governmental-interference theory; judicial decisions are not "new facts"; 60-day rule not satisfied |
| Whether ineffective assistance of prior counsel excuses untimeliness | Tadych suggested prior counsel’s ineffectiveness supported relief | Commonwealth relied on controlling precedent that prior counsel’s ineffectiveness does not excuse statutory timeliness unless other exception applies | Ineffective-assistance claim does not overcome the PCRA time-bar here |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania decision addressing Alleyne issues)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne not held retroactive for PCRA purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (60-day rule runs from the cited decision)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial determinations are not "new facts" under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirements for newly recognized constitutional-right exception)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance of prior counsel does not excuse PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness is jurisdictional for PCRA petitions)