Com. v. Wilcox, N.
986 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Nathan Wilcox pleaded guilty (May 26, 2015) to highest-rate DUI and driving on laned roadway after a warrantless blood draw allegedly showing .30% BAC; he had a prior DUI in 2013.
- Sentenced July 16, 2015 to 60 months intermediate punishment (30 days county jail). No pre-trial suppression motion, post-sentence motion, or direct appeal was filed.
- Wilcox filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (July 15, 2016), later amended to assert relief based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota (June 23, 2016).
- The sole issue at the PCRA hearing was whether Birchfield applies retroactively to cases final before Birchfield.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition (June 14, 2017); Wilcox appealed. The Superior Court affirmed, holding Birchfield does not retroactively entitle Wilcox to relief and that his guilty plea waived nonjurisdictional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield v. North Dakota applies retroactively to Wilcox’s final conviction | Birchfield established a substantive rule barring warrantless blood tests incident to arrest and therefore should apply retroactively | Birchfield announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively to convictions that were final and Wilcox failed to preserve the issue | Court held Birchfield does not apply retroactively to Wilcox’s final conviction |
| Whether Wilcox’s guilty plea preserves his Birchfield challenge | Wilcox argued relief still available because Birchfield undermines the basis for his conviction under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c) | Commonwealth argued a guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects, including Fourth Amendment challenges not raised before plea | Court held Wilcox’s plea waived nonjurisdictional claims; he did not attack plea validity or sentence legality, so claim is waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding warrantless blood tests incident to arrest are not justified under search-incident-to-arrest exception)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively on direct review but generally not to final convictions except in limited circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2017) (explained DL-26 implied-consent advisories were partially inaccurate post-Birchfield and remanded to reassess consent)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (new appellate decisions apply retroactively only when issue preserved through direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Cabeza, 469 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1983) (retroactivity rule: new principles apply retroactively only if issue was preserved at all adjudicative stages)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendants are generally not entitled to retroactive application of new constitutional rules absent preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects and binds defendant to plea colloquy statements)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)