Com. v. Travwick, D., Com. v. Travwick, D. No. 1728 EDA 2016

David Travwick was convicted in 2004 of third-degree murder, PIC, and two counts of REAP and sentenced to 15–40 years imprisonment.
Travwick’s judgment of sentence became final on December 28, 2005, after the time to seek allowance of appeal expired.
He filed his fourth pro se PCRA petition on August 13, 2015; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 20, 2016.
Travwick asserted constitutional arguments relying on recent Supreme Court decisions (Welch, Johnson) and other cases, implying a newly recognized constitutional right exception, but did not adequately invoke or explain the PCRA time‑bar exception.
The Commonwealth noted Travwick did not receive a mandatory minimum sentence, so cases addressing mandatory minima were inapplicable.
The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding the petition untimely because Travwick failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA one‑year filing requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Travwick’s PCRA petition is timely or excused by a newly recognized constitutional right (Welch/Johnson)	Travwick contended recent SCOTUS decisions (Welch/Johnson) announced a new substantive rule that should apply retroactively, justifying a late PCRA filing	Commonwealth/PCRA court argued Travwick failed to plead or prove any §9545(b) exception; cited inapplicability of mandatory‑minimum cases because no mandatory minimum was imposed	Petition dismissed as untimely; Travwick did not satisfy the PCRA statutory exceptions, so court lacked jurisdiction to address merits

Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson announced a new substantive rule invalidating the residual clause of the ACCA and applied retroactively on collateral review)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held facts that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (statutory exceptions to PCRA timeliness and 60‑day filing requirement explained)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (burden to plead and prove PCRA time‑bar exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of PCRA exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (state decision addressing Alleyne implications for mandatory minimum sentencing)