Com. v. Weidow, S., III
174 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Appellant Stuart W. Weidow pled guilty to one count of Rape of a Child (18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c)) on May 26, 2011 and was sentenced on August 30, 2011 to 120–240 months’ imprisonment, which included a § 9718 ten-year mandatory minimum.
- No direct appeal was filed; the judgment of sentence became final on September 30, 2011.
- Weidow filed a pro se PCRA petition on November 19, 2015, later supplemented by counsel, arguing the mandatory minimum under § 9718 was unconstitutional under Alleyne.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, noted Commonwealth v. Washington, and denied relief as the petition was untimely.
- Counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Turner/Finley and conducted an independent merits/time‑bar review.
- The Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review to permit relief from § 9718 mandatory minimums | Weidow: Alleyne renders the § 9718 mandatory minimum unconstitutional and should apply to vacate his sentence | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to cases finalized before Alleyne | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; Weidow’s petition is time‑barred |
| Whether § 9718 is facially invalid after Commonwealth v. Wolfe | Weidow: § 9718 is unconstitutional under Wolfe/Alleyne and his sentence is illegal | Commonwealth: Even if § 9718 is invalid under Wolfe, the rule does not entitle collateral relief because of the PCRA time bar and retroactivity rules | § 9718 may be invalid per Wolfe, but petitioner is not entitled to collateral relief because his judgment was final before the rule and Washington/Riggle bar retroactive application |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the petition despite untimeliness | Weidow: constitutional-right exception or other exception to the time bar applies | Commonwealth: No statutory exception applies; petition filed more than one year after finality | PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; petition dismissed as untimely |
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley technical requirements to withdraw | Counsel: submitted no‑merit brief, notified petitioner, and sought permission to withdraw | Appellant: (implicitly) counsel should not be permitted to withdraw without adequate review | Superior Court found counsel complied with Turner/Finley and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (mandatory‑minimum facts increasing sentence must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held § 9718 unconstitutional under Alleyne principles)
- Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne does not satisfy PCRA new‑constitutional‑right exception)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (standards for reviewing denial of PCRA relief)