Com. v. Whitney, R.

J-S30017-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RICKY DEAN WHITNEY
Appellant No. 1864 MDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered October 18, 2016,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-01-CR-0000789-1997.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, RANSOM, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J., FILED JUNE 27, 2017
Appellant, Ricky Dean Whitney, appeals pro se from the October 18,
2016 order denying as untimely his serial petition filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The pertinent facts and extensive procedural history, as gleaned from
our review of the certified record, are as follows: In 1998, Appellant was
convicted of two counts of attempted murder and related charges following a
standoff with police. On October 13, 1998, the trial court imposed an
aggregate sentence of thirty to seventy-two years of imprisonment. We
affirmed his judgment of sentence on October 4, 1999, and Appellant failed
to file a timely petition for allowance of appeal. Appellant filed his first PCRA
petition in 2001, and the PCRA court appointed counsel. The PCRA court
denied the petition as untimely, and we affirmed. Ultimately, our Supreme
J-S30017-17
granted Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal, reversed this Court, and
remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the timeliness of Appellant’s
PCRA petition.
Upon remand and based upon an agreement of the parties, the PCRA
court reinstated Appellant’s right to petition for allowance of appeal to our
Supreme Court. Thereafter, Appellant filed the petition, which our Supreme
Court denied on March 8, 2005.
On January 4, 2006, Appellant filed his second PCRA petition, and the
PCRA court again appointed counsel. On October 20, 2006, the PCRA Court
dismissed the petition on its merits except for certain issues relating to his
original sentence. At resentencing on December 1, 2006, the trial court
vacated Appellant’s original sentence on several counts and resentenced him
in a manner that did not affect his aggregate sentence. Appellant filed a
timely appeal to this Court, we affirmed on December 2, 2008, and our
Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on March 9, 2010.
On July 10, 2015, Appellant pro se filed his third petition, and the
PCRA court once again appointed counsel. Following the issuance of
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, the PCRA court denied the petition as untimely filed
on September 19, 2015. Appellant timely appealed to this Court, and PCRA
counsel filed a motion to withdraw. In an unpublished memorandum filed on
August 9, 2016, we affirmed the order denying post-conviction relief and
permitted counsel to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Whitney, 156 A.3d
331 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum).
-2-
J-S30017-17
On October 13, 2016, Appellant pro se filed a “Motion to Vacate Illegal
Sentence,” which the PCRA court correctly concluded should be treated as
untimely under the PCRA and dismissed on October 18, 2016. See
Commonwealth v. Mercado, 826 A.2d 897, 898 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(concluding that the PCRA provides the sole means for obtaining relief from
an illegal sentence). This timely appeal follows. Both Appellant and the
PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues:
1. Did the [PCRA] Court commit an err[or] of law by failing to
correct an illegal sentence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9542?
2. Since 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9712 has been declared unconstitutional,
null and void is not the Court mandated to correct a patent
err[or] in accordance with the holdings of the Pennsylvania
Superior Court and Supreme Court?
3. Since 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9712 is unconstitutional, [under] which
Appellant was sentence[d,] [does Appellant] have a right to
have his sentence vacated on those charges and
resentenced?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
In order to address Appellant’s issues, we must first determine
whether the PCRA court correctly determined that Appellant’s serial petition
for post-conviction relief was untimely filed. This Court’s standard of review
regarding an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA is “to determine
whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of
record and is free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be
disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record.
-3-
J-S30017-17
Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citations omitted).
Although Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence, this claim
still must be presented in a timely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v.
Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added). This is
because the timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional.
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or
subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment
is final unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an
exception to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. sections
9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.1 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545. A PCRA petition
____________________________________________
1
The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
interference of government officials with the presentation of the
claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown
to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the
exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in
this section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S30017-17
invoking one of these statutory exceptions must “be filed within 60 days of
the date the claims could have been presented.” See Hernandez, 79 A.3d
651-52 (citations omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
In a prior appeal, we determined that Appellant’s judgment of
sentence “became final on June 7, 2010, his final day to appeal to the United
States Supreme Court in the appellate proceedings that followed his
resentencing.” Whitney, mem. op. at 9. Therefore, Appellant needed to
file the PCRA petition at issue by June 7, 2011, in order for it to be timely.
As Appellant filed the instant petition on October 13, 2016, it is untimely
unless he has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that one of the
enumerated exceptions applies. See Hernandez, supra.Appellant has failed to prove any exception to the PCRA’s time bar. He
asserts the applicability of the newly-discovered constitutional right
exception provided in Section 9545(b)(iii). Specifically, he argues that he is
entitled to resentencing on charges in which mandatory minimums were
imposed pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne
v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). In Alleyne, the high court held
that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the
penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory minimum must be
submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Alleyne, 131 S.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii).
-5-
J-S30017-17
Ct. at 2160-61. In light of this holding, subsequent case law from this
Court, as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, have struck down
mandatory minimums that were to be applied at sentencing, including 42
Pa.C.S. section 9712. See Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801,
812 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Appellant’s claim fails for several reasons. Initially, we note that
Appellant did not file his petition within sixty days of the 2013 Alleyne
decision. Moreover, to the extent Appellant argues he should benefit from
retroactive application of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Alleyne, supra, his claim fails. Assuming arguendo the United States
Supreme Court recognized a new constitutional right in Alleyne, neither the
United States Supreme Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held
the right applies retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence
had become final. See, generally, Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146
A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016). Finally, our Supreme Court has unequivocally
held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases, such as Appellant’s,
pending on collateral review. See generally, Commonwealth v.
Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016).
Thus, for all of these reasons, the PCRA court correctly concluded that
it lacked jurisdiction to address Appellant’s serial PCRA petition. We
therefore affirm its order denying post-conviction relief.
Order affirmed.
-6-
J-S30017-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/27/2017
-7-