J-S19011-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHNATHON J. IVEY,
Appellant No. 2341 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002864-2010
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 16, 2016
Appellant, Johnathon J. Ivey, appeals pro se from the post-conviction
court’s July 21, 2015 order denying, as untimely, his petition filed under the
Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The facts underlying Appellant’s convictions are unnecessary to our
disposition of his appeal. The PCRA court summarized the procedural history
of his case, as follows:
On February 15, 2011, Appellant pled guilty to one count
of robbery and one count of conspiracy. He was sentenced that
day to serve a term of imprisonment of five to ten years.
Appellant did not appeal from his judgment of sentence[;]
rather, on March 11, 2011, he filed a petition under the [PCRA].
We appointed him PCRA counsel, who subsequently sought to
withdraw his representation after finding no merit to Appellant’s
claims. After our independent review of the file and the record
revealed that Appellant was entitled to no PCRA relief, we
dismissed his petition on July 20, 2011. Appellant did not appeal
that order to the Superior Court.
J-S19011-16
Appellant filed[, pro se,] his second PCRA petition on May
26, 2015. We reviewed the petition, found that it was untimely,
and on June 23, 2015, provided to [Appellant] the mandatory
twenty-day notice of our intent to dismiss his petition [pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907]. Although Appellant responded to this
notice, his response established entitlement to no exception to
the PCRA’s timeliness requirement, and we dismissed his petition
on July 21, 2015.
PCRA Court Opinion (PCO), 9/1/15, at 1-2.
Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal, and also timely
complied with the PCRA court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
The court subsequently issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Herein, Appellant
presents three issues for our review:
1) Whether the [PCRA] [c]ourt was in error to dismiss
[Appellant’s] PCRA [petition] as untimely? Specifically, in light of
the ruling by the Superior Court in Commonwealth v.
Valentine[, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014),] that makes
imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 to 10 years
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §[]9712, unconstitutional. Did the
[PCRA] [c]ourt err in it’s [sic] determination that this
“Alleyne”[1] violation is not applicable retroactively to collateral
review cases?
2) Whether the [PCRA] [c]ourts [sic] determination that
[Appellant] is not entitled to relief for the unconstitutional
sentence is in error? Specifically, as the statute that [Appellant]
is being held in custody for has been ruled unconstitutional in it’s
[sic] entirety, does this not then render [Appellant’s] sentence
unconstitutional, and require [Appellant] to be re-sentenced
under a lawful and constitutionally sound statute?
3) Whether it was error to not reinstate [Appellant’s] direct
appeal rights nunc pro tunc, so as to allow [Appellant] the
mechanism to challenge the constitutionality of [Appellant’s]
sentence? Specifically, as [Appellant’s] sentence is “a
____________________________________________
1
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013).
-2-
J-S19011-16
mandatory minimum sentence because of the gun[’s] being used
in the robbery, even though it wasn’t a regular firearm” and
[Appellant] is held in custody by virtue of an unconstitutional
statute, namely 42 Pa.C.S.A. §[]9712[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order denying a petition
under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported
by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We must begin by addressing the
timeliness of Appellant’s petition, because the PCRA time limitations
implicate our jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in order to
address the merits of a petition. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930
A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, any petition for post-
conviction relief, including a second or subsequent one, must be filed within
one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless one of
the following exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies:
(b) Time for filing petition.--
(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second
or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the
date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition
alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the
result of interference by 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
-3-
J-S19011-16
(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.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke one of
these exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Here, because Appellant did not file a direct appeal, his judgment of
sentence became final on March 17, 2011, thirty days after the imposition of
his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (directing that judgment of
sentence becomes final at the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of
the time for seeking the review); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (requiring notice of
appeal to “be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the
appeal is taken”). Thus, Appellant had until March 17, 2012, to file a timely
PCRA petition, making his instant petition, filed on May 26, 2015, facially
untimely. For this Court to have jurisdiction to review the merits thereof,
Appellant must prove that he meets one of the exceptions to the timeliness
requirements set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
Appellant avers he satisfies the exception of section 9545(b)(1)(iii)
based on Alleyne and this Court’s decision in Valentine. He also contends
that his mandatory minimum sentence is illegal under Valentine, and we
must correct that sentence, or reinstate his direct appeal rights nunc pro
tunc, “to allow justice to be served.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. For the
following reasons, we disagree with each of these assertions.
-4-
J-S19011-16
Preliminarily, the fact that Appellant’s issue implicates the legality of
his sentence does not automatically entitle him to review; instead, he must
first demonstrate the applicability of a timeliness exception to invoke this
Court’s jurisdiction. We explained this point in Commonwealth v. Miller,
102 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014):
We are aware that an issue pertaining to Alleyne goes to the
legality of the sentence. See Commonwealth v. Newman, 99
A.3d 86, 90 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc ) (stating, “a challenge
to a sentence premised upon Alleyne likewise implicates the
legality of the sentence and cannot be waived on appeal[ ]”). It
is generally true that “this Court is endowed with the ability to
consider an issue of illegality of sentence sua sponte.”
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 883 n. 7 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (citation omitted). However, in order for this
Court to review a legality of sentence claim, there must be
a basis for our jurisdiction to engage in such review. See
Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242, 1254 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (stating, “[a] challenge to the legality of a
sentence ... may be entertained as long as the reviewing court
has jurisdiction[ ]”) (citation omitted). As this Court recently
noted, “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality [of
sentence] claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised ...
in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception
applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim.”
[Commonwealth v.] Seskey[, 86 A.3d 237, 242 (Pa. Super.
2014)].
Id. at 995 (emphasis added).
Appellant first fails to prove the applicability of a timeliness exception
because his May 26, 2015 petition was not filed within 60 days of the filing
of either Alleyne (decided on June 17, 2013) or Valentine (decided on
October 3, 2014). Consequently, we could affirm the PCRA court’s denial of
Appellant’s petition on this basis alone. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)
-5-
J-S19011-16
(mandating that any petition attempting to invoke a timeliness exception
“shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been
presented”) (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, Appellant is also unable to demonstrate the applicability
of the timeliness exception he pleads, section 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Subsection (iii) of Section 9545[(b)(1)] has two requirements.
First, it provides that 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 provided
in this section. Second, it provides that the right “has been
held” by “that court” to apply retroactively. Thus, a petitioner
must prove that there is a “new” constitutional right and that the
right “has been held” by that court to apply retroactively. The
language “has been held” is in the past tense. These words
mean that the action has already occurred, i.e., “that court” has
already held the new constitutional right to be retroactive to
cases on collateral review. By employing the past tense in
writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the
right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed.
Seskey, 86 A.3d at 242-43 (quoting Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941
A.2d 646, 649–50 (Pa. 2007)).
In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court held that any fact that
triggers application of a mandatory minimum sentence must be determined
by the fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt. Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2162-
2163. Since the High Court’s decision in Alleyne, various mandatory
minimum sentencing statutes in this Commonwealth have been declared
unconstitutional. See, i.e., Newman, 99 A.3d at 103 (holding that under
Alleyne, the mandatory minimum sentencing statute set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9712.1 is unconstitutional). In Valentine, this Court held that 42 Pa.C.S.
-6-
J-S19011-16
§ 9712 - the mandatory minimum sentencing statute under which
Appellant’s sentence was imposed - is unconstitutional in its entirety
pursuant to Alleyne and Newman. Valentine, 101 A.3d at 812.
However, in Miller, this Court rejected the untimely petitioner’s
argument that Alleyne satisfies section 9545(b)(1)(iii), stating:
Even assuming that Alleyne did announce a new
constitutional right, neither our Supreme Court, nor the United
States Supreme Court has held that Alleyne is to be applied
retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence had
become final. This is fatal to Appellant’s argument regarding the
PCRA time-bar. This Court has recognized that a new rule of
constitutional law is applied retroactively to cases on collateral
review only if the United States Supreme Court or our Supreme
Court specifically holds it to be retroactively applicable to those
cases. Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317, 320 (Pa.
Super. 2011), appeal denied, 615 Pa. 784, 42 A.3d 1059 (2012),
citing Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150
L.Ed.2d 632 (2001); see also, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating, “for
purposes of subsection (iii), the language ‘has been held by that
court to apply retroactively’ means the court announcing the rule
must have also ruled on the retroactivity of the new
constitutional right, before the petitioner can assert retroactive
application of the right in a PCRA petition[ ]”), appeal denied,
597 Pa. 715, 951 A.2d 1163 (2008). Therefore, Appellant has
failed to satisfy the new constitutional right exception to the
time-bar.
Miller, 102 A.2d at 995.
Based on our decision in Miller, it is clear that Appellant’s reliance on
Alleyne cannot satisfy the timeliness exception of section 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Additionally, Valentine does not meet that exception, as it did not announce
a ‘new constitutional right,’ nor hold that Alleyne applies retroactively.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that section 9545(b)(1)(iii) applies
-7-
J-S19011-16
to his case, we are without jurisdiction to correct his illegal sentence. See
Miller, supra. We also note that we are without jurisdiction to reinstate
Appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, as he requests. See
Appellant’s Brief at 8. Accordingly, we conclude that the PCRA court did not
err in denying Appellant’s untimely petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/16/2016
-8-