Com. v. Tapia, R.
Com. v. Tapia, R. No. 2782 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 5, 2017Background
- In Jan 2010 Tapia pled guilty to rape of a child and related sexual offenses; in May 2010 he was sentenced to an aggregate 15–30 years and did not file a direct appeal.
- Tapia filed a timely first PCRA petition in Feb 2011; it was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. The PA Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Tapia’s second PCRA petition (Apr 2015) was dismissed as untimely and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- On Apr 7, 2016 Tapia filed a third pro se petition (treated as a PCRA petition), asserting his mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 violated Alleyne and was therefore unconstitutional.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely; Tapia did not respond to the Rule 907 notice and appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was facially untimely, Tapia did not plead any timeliness exception, and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to final judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tapia) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should be treated as a PCRA petition | Petition challenges sentence legality; court should correct illegal sentence outside PCRA | Any post-judgment collateral challenge is a PCRA petition and subject to PCRA timeliness | Treated as PCRA petition; dismissal proper for untimeliness |
| Whether Alleyne invalidates Tapia’s mandatory minimum and can be applied now | Alleyne renders § 9718 unconstitutional retroactively to inception; sentence illegal and must be corrected | Alleyne claim raised collateral review is governed by PCRA timeliness and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to final judgments | Alleyne claim untimely and Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review; no relief |
| Whether the court had inherent authority to correct a patently illegal sentence | Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time | Trial court cannot use inherent authority to bypass PCRA jurisdictional/timeliness rules | No; inherent-authority argument rejected because PCRA jurisdictional limits control |
| Due process/equal protection challenge to failure to vacate sentence after § 9718 struck | Failure to vacate violates Due Process and Equal Protection because law is retroactively void | Claims are collateral and untimely under PCRA; procedural bars prevent relief | Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held § 9718 void under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to final judgments)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (post-judgment petitions are treated as PCRA petitions and subject to PCRA jurisdictional rules)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 863 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (petitioner must plead and prove a PCRA timeliness exception)