Com. v. Troop, J.
2022 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 8, 2016Background
- James Earl Troop was convicted by a jury in 1988 and sentenced to an aggregate term of 25½ to 51 years.
- Troop’s direct appeal was affirmed by this Court in 1990; he did not petition the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. His judgment of sentence became final in April 1990.
- Troop filed numerous prior PCRA petitions; the instant (tenth) PCRA petition was filed on June 16, 2015.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on November 20, 2015 as patently untimely under the one-year filing rule.
- Troop relied on Alleyne v. United States (2013), arguing Alleyne created a new constitutional rule rendering his mandatory minimum illegal; he invoked the PCRA timeliness exception for newly recognized constitutional rights.
- The PCRA court and this Court concluded Troop’s petition was untimely and that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to final judgments, so the timeliness exception was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Troop’s 2015 PCRA petition is timely | Troop contended Alleyne created a new constitutional rule that renders his sentence illegal, invoking the after-recognized-rights exception | Commonwealth argued petition is facially untimely (judgment final in 1990) and Alleyne was decided in 2013, so Troop missed the 60-day window | Petition is untimely; Troop’s 2015 filing did not meet the PCRA time limits |
| Whether Alleyne’s rule applies retroactively to final judgments | Troop argued Alleyne applies to mandatory minimums and should be applied retroactively to his case | Commonwealth argued neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Pa. Supreme Court has held Alleyne retroactive to final sentences | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to convictions that were final before Alleyne; exception not met |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider Alleyne-based legality claims | Troop asserted Alleyne implicates legality of sentence and thus should be reviewable despite timeliness | Commonwealth maintained PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and court lacks jurisdiction absent a satisfied exception | Court lacked jurisdiction because timeliness exception not established; dismissal proper |
| Whether Troop filed within 60 days of the date his Alleyne claim could have been presented | Troop filed in June 2015 and argued his claim was timely enough under PCRA exceptions | Commonwealth pointed out Alleyne was decided June 17, 2013, so 60-day window expired in 2013 | Troop’s filing was well beyond 60 days of Alleyne and therefore untimely under §9545(b)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (held mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (made Miller retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne not held retroactive to final judgments)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (60-day period for after-recognized constitutional rights begins on the decision date)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (clarifies when judgment of sentence is final for PCRA purposes)