Com. v. Witman, A.
Com. v. Witman, A. No. 1601 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- In May 2012, Andrew Witman pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) to multiple counts for sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s 14-year-old daughter and was sentenced to 8–20 years’ imprisonment plus 5 years’ probation.
- Witman did not file post‑sentence motions or a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final in June 2012.
- Witman filed a pro se PCRA petition in May 2015 asserting Alleyne-based illegality; that petition was dismissed as untimely and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal in February 2016.
- He filed a second pro se PCRA petition on August 10, 2016 (the subject of this appeal). The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on September 12, 2016.
- Witman argued (1) his mandatory minimum sentence was illegal under Alleyne, (2) the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the sentence exceeded the indictment, and (3) SORNA classification/judgment issues violated his rights because he lacked notice of sex‑offender proceedings.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that Alleyne does not provide a retroactive basis; SORNA and waiver arguments were barred or meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Witman’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of sentence under Alleyne | Alleyne makes his mandatory minimum sentence illegal | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review and Witman’s claim is untimely | Court: Alleyne not retroactive for PCRA relief; claim untimely and dismissed |
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction / sentence outside indictment | Trial court lacked jurisdiction because sentence exceeded indictment | Judgment became final and jurisdictional timeliness bars review; claim waived/untimely | Court: Claim procedurally defaulted/untimely; no relief |
| SORNA classification / lack of notice of proceedings | He was never notified of sexual‑offender classification proceedings; SORNA process violated rights | Claim was not raised earlier, is waived, and is meritless given his signed Megan’s Law rights form | Court: Claim barred by waiver/previous litigation rules and factually meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard and scope of appellate review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (enumerating PCRA timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standards for counsel filing no‑merit letter in collateral proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw via no‑merit letter)