Com. v. Wallace, J.
2274 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- On Feb. 21, 2011, Wallace punched a bar patron, causing a subdural hemorrhage and skull/temporal fractures; victim suffered ongoing headaches and hearing loss.
- A jury convicted Wallace of aggravated assault on Apr. 5, 2012; the court sentenced him to 10–20 years on Apr. 25, 2012.
- Wallace pursued a pro se direct appeal, waived appellate counsel after a Grazier hearing, and the Superior Court affirmed; the Supreme Court denied review on Feb. 20, 2014.
- Wallace filed three successive pro se PCRA petitions (Mar. 5, 2014; Dec. 4, 2014; Apr. 6, 2015) raising insufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct/manufactured evidence, and an Alleyne-based illegal-sentence claim.
- The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely on Dec. 15, 2015; Wallace appealed and raised timeliness, fraud/prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of discretion, and illegal-sentence claims.
- The Superior Court held the third petition was timely (judgment final May 21, 2014; one-year PCRA window until May 21, 2015) but affirmed the dismissal on other grounds: Wallace’s claims were either non-cognizable under the PCRA, previously litigated/waived, or Alleyne does not provide collateral relief and no mandatory minimum applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wallace) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of third PCRA petition | Petition filed Apr. 6, 2015 was timely because final judgment occurred after denial of certiorari deadline (May 21, 2014) | PCRA court originally miscalculated finality date and dismissed as untimely | Superior Court: petition was timely; trial court erred in that timeliness dismissal |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (intent element) | Conviction unsupported; Commonwealth failed to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficiency claims are not cognizable on PCRA and were previously litigated/waived | Held: claim not cognizable under PCRA / previously litigated; relief denied |
| Manufactured/false evidence / prosecutorial misconduct | Commonwealth knowingly used false evidence / committed misconduct warranting relief | Issues were raised or could have been raised earlier; thus waived or previously litigated | Held: claim waived or previously litigated; not a basis for PCRA relief |
| Alleyne / illegal mandatory minimum sentence | Alleyne renders sentence illegal because elements were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; no mandatory minimum was imposed here | Held: Alleyne provides no collateral relief; claim fails; affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (P.A. 2008) (PCRA timeliness and finality rules)
- Commonwealth v. Zook, 585 Pa. 11, 887 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2005) (PCRA cognizability of claims and eligibility requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency claims not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding fact-finding that increases mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 600 Pa. 1, 963 A.2d 409 (Pa. 2009) (when an issue is "previously litigated" under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate court may affirm on any correct ground)