J-S59034-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MELVIN METZ
Appellant No. 3463 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 13, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-51-CR-0903491-1996
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD,* J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 31, 2016
Pro se Appellant, Melvin Metz, appeals from the order dismissing his
fourth Post Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”) petition. Appellant claims that
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), applies retroactively to
his 1998 sentence. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the PCRA court.
See PCRA Ct. Op., 12/11/15, at 1-2. Appellant timely appealed and the
court did not order him to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant
contends the court erred by not correcting his illegal sentence. As noted
above, he asserts Alleyne applies retroactively to his case.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S59034-16
Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claim, our Supreme Court
has required this Court to examine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain
the underlying PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214,
223 (Pa. 1999). “Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a
PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s
determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en
banc) (citation omitted). A PCRA petition “must normally be filed within one
year of the date the judgment becomes final . . . unless one of the
exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies and the petition is filed within 60
days of the date the claim could have been presented.” Commonwealth v.
Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (citations and footnote
omitted).
After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the certified record, and the
PCRA court’s decision, we affirm on the basis of that decision. See PCRA Ct.
Op. at 3-4 (holding that Alleyne has no retroactive effect to cases in which
judgments of sentence had become final (citing Commonwealth v. Miller,
102 A.3d 998, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014)). More recently and definitively, our
Supreme Court held “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending
on collateral review . . . .” Commonwealth v. Washington, ___ A.3d ___,
2016 WL 3909088 at *8 (Pa. July 19, 2016). Having discerned no abuse of
discretion or law, we affirm the order below. See Wilson, 824 A.2d at 333.
-2-
J-S59034-16
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/31/2016
-3-