Com. v. Warren, D.
Com. v. Warren, D. No. 1903 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Appellant Diquan Warren pled guilty in February 2013 to corruption of minors and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and received an aggregate 132–312 month sentence in June 2013 that included a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.
- He did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on July 22, 2013.
- Warren filed a pro se PCRA petition on July 29, 2016 (first PCRA); counsel later filed an amended petition asserting Alleyne-based illegality of sentence and ineffective assistance for failing to advise him about Alleyne in time to preserve claims.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice finding the petition untimely and lacking jurisdiction; Warren did not respond and the petition was dismissed on December 7, 2016.
- Warren appealed, arguing the petition met the PCRA timeliness exceptions based on Alleyne as either a "newly-discovered fact" or an "after-recognized" constitutional right and that his incarceration prevented earlier discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Warren's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely or fits a statutory time‑bar exception | Alleyne created a basis for relief; he filed within 60 days of learning about Alleyne and thus meets either the newly‑discovered‑fact or after‑recognized constitutional‑right exception | Petition is facially untimely; Alleyne is a judicial decision (not a "fact") and the after‑recognized‑right exception does not apply because Alleyne was decided before his filing window closed and he did not file within 60 days of Alleyne | Petition untimely; exceptions not met; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether Alleyne can be treated as a "newly‑discovered fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Alleyne discovery constitutes a new fact that could not be ascertained earlier due to incarceration | Judicial decisions are not "facts" for § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Alleyne is not a "fact"; exception rejected |
| Whether Alleyne is an "after‑recognized" constitutional right under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) and timely invoked under § 9545(b)(2) | Alleyne applies to his sentence; incarceration/ignorance excuses delay in filing within 60 days of decision | § 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires the right to have been recognized after the PCRA filing window closed; the 60‑day clock runs from the decision date, and ignorance/incarceration does not excuse late filing | Exception inapplicable because Alleyne was decided before his one‑year window closed and he did not file within 60 days of Alleyne |
| Whether court may reach merits (illegal sentence / ineffective assistance) despite timing | Merits-based relief requested based on Alleyne and counsel failure to advise | Timeliness is jurisdictional; absent an applicable exception, court cannot reach merits | Court lacks jurisdiction; claims not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (recognizing that facts increasing mandatory sentence are elements for jury)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (applying Alleyne to invalidate § 9718 mandatory minimum)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (discussing limits on invoking § 9545 exceptions for incarcerated pro se petitioners)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness requirements are jurisdictional and strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 789 A.2d 728 (Pa. Super. 2001) (ignorance or prison resources do not excuse § 9545(b)(2) sixty‑day requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sixty‑day period runs from the date of the judicial decision)