Com. v. Walton, D., 135 A.3d 653

Daniel Walton was convicted in 2008 of multiple drug offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of six to twelve years. His judgment of sentence became final in October 2010 after direct review ended.
Walton filed a timely first PCRA petition and later, in 2014, filed (1) an August 5 motion invoking Alleyne and seeking a new trial/resentencing and (2) a September 17 "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum via Video Conference" requesting a video conference with the trial court to discuss resentencing.
The PCRA court dismissed the September 17 petition on November 26, 2014, concluding Alleyne did not provide relief because Walton’s case was not on direct appeal. The August 5 motion remained unresolved.
Walton appealed; appellate counsel (DeVita) filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw after following Turner/Finley technical steps (with Anders-style protections).
The Superior Court treated Walton’s habeas filing as a PCRA petition, found it untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), and considered whether Alleyne or Newman created a retroactive new constitutional right to excuse the time bar.
The court independently reviewed the record, found no meritorious issues, granted counsel’s petition to withdraw, and affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of relief.

Issue	Walton's Argument	PCRA/ Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Walton's habeas petition should be treated as a PCRA petition and therefore is subject to PCRA timeliness rules	Walton sought relief from an allegedly unconstitutional mandatory minimum (Alleyne) and styled his filing as a writ of habeas corpus	Relief for a sentence claim is governed by the PCRA; habeas is unavailable where PCRA relief exists	Court treated the filing as a PCRA petition and applied PCRA jurisdictional timeliness rules
Whether Alleyne (and Newman) created a new constitutional right that satisfies the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception so Walton’s otherwise untimely PCRA petition is timely	Alleyne and Newman recognized a new right rendering Walton’s mandatory-minimum-based sentence infirm; thus the petition meets the newly-recognized-right exception	Even if Alleyne announced a new rule, neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the PA Supreme Court has held Alleyne retroactive on collateral review; Miller forecloses relief	Petition is untimely; Alleyne has not been held retroactive and does not satisfy the § 9545 exception

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standard for counsel seeking withdrawal when appellate claim is frivolous)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding any fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element for the jury)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne not held retroactive for collateral review; § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception unsatisfied)
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA court may not entertain a petition while a prior petition is on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012) (clarifies limits of Lark where a PCRA court held one petition in abeyance while ruling on another)
Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA is exclusive remedy for post-conviction collateral relief)