Commonwealth v. Whitehawk
146 A.3d 266
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Travis Justin Whitehawk pled guilty on May 17, 2011 to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child and was sentenced to 8–20 years; he did not file a direct appeal.
- He filed a pro se PCRA petition on August 11, 2015 (prisoner-mailbox rule applied).
- Appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and moved to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on January 6, 2016 as untimely.
- Whitehawk argued his sentence became illegal under Alleyne and that Commonwealth v. Hopkins (2015) rendered Alleyne retroactively applicable; he invoked the PCRA "newly discovered facts" exception and filed within 60 days of Hopkins.
- The PCRA court concluded Whitehawk waived certain claims by pleading guilty and that he failed to prove any timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was untimely and no statutory exception applied; it also noted that Alleyne/Hopkins had not been held retroactive to collateral review by controlling authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Whitehawk: petition timely because filed within 60 days of Hopkins decision which rendered his sentence illegal | Commonwealth: judgment became final July 11, 2011; PCRA petition filed Aug 11, 2015, thus untimely absent an exception | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction absent an applicable exception |
| Applicability of § 9545(b)(1)(ii) ("newly discovered facts") | Whitehawk: Hopkins/Alleyne created a new substantive rule and Hopkins supplied a newly discovered "fact," so § 9545(b)(1)(ii) tolled time | Commonwealth: subsequent decisional law is not a "new fact" under Watts; the 60-day period runs from the decision date, and Hopkins does not create a qualifying "fact" | Rejected; decisional law is not a "fact" for § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and Whitehawk did not meet the exception |
| Retroactivity of Alleyne to collateral review | Whitehawk: Alleyne announced a substantive rule that must be applied retroactively; Hopkins implies retroactive effect | Commonwealth: neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Pa. Supreme Court has held Alleyne retroactive; Hopkins did not itself establish retroactivity to all collateral cases | Alleyne/Hopkins were not held retroactive by controlling authority; Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral review (citing later Pennsylvania precedent) |
| Jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence outside PCRA time limits | Whitehawk: trial court retains inherent jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence; relief should be available despite time bar | Commonwealth: legality-of-sentence claims must still satisfy PCRA timing or an exception; court lacks jurisdiction if petition is untimely | Rejected; legality claims require timely PCRA petition or qualifying exception before court has jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (invalidated certain mandatory-minimum statute under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (subsequent decisional law is not a "new fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are reviewable but must meet PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)