J-S47044-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALFRED ALBERT RINALDI

Appellant No. 2080 MDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 10, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0001054-2001

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2016

Alfred Albert Rinaldi appeals, pro se, from the trial court’s order 

dismissing his petition,1filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(PCRA).2 We affirm.

In September 2003, Rinaldi entered a guilty plea to third-degree 

murder (F-1) and robbery (F-1).3 On September 25, 2003, Rinaldi was 

sentenced, in accordance with a plea agreement, to 20-40 years in prison for 

the murder charge and 10-20 years’ imprisonment for robbery, for an 

____________________________________________

1 On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, we must determine whether the 

PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and whether the order is 

otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 647 A.2d 915, 

920 (Pa. Super. 1994). 

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c); 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i).
J-S47044-16

- 2 -

aggregate sentence of 30-60 years’ imprisonment. No direct appeal was 

filed. On August 7, 2004, Rinaldi filed a pro se PCRA petition. PCRA counsel 

was appointed and he filed an amended petition on Rinaldi’s behalf. 

However, on September 13, 2005, Rinaldi appeared before the court to 

voluntarily withdraw his PCRA petition. After holding a colloquy to determine 

whether his withdrawal request was being made voluntarily and after 

consultation with appointed counsel, the court permitted withdrawal and 

dismissed the amended petition. On October 8, 2015, Rinaldi filed the 

instant PCRA petition pro se in which he claims, in relevant part, that:

[H]is mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

1103 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania’s decision in Commonwealth v. Hopkins, [117 

A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015)].

The instant petition is filed within sixty (60) days of learning of 

the decision in Hopkins at S.C.I. Rockview Law Library on 09-

27-LEXUSNEXUS, 2015, pursuant to the filing restraints of Newly 

Discovered Evidence outlined in Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 

A.3d 1210 (2014)[.]

Petitioner now contends that his sentence is now 

unconstitutional, illegal, and lacks statutory authorization due to 

the fact that “an unconstitutional statute is ineffective for any 

purpose [as] it’s [sic] unconstitutionality dates from the time of 

its enactment and not merely the date of the decision holding it 

so.” 

Pro Se PCRA Petition, 10/8/15, at ¶¶ 3-5. On November 10, 2015, the trial 

court dismissed Rinaldi’s petition, without a hearing, deeming it facially 

untimely and one that did not meet an exception to the timeliness 

requirements of the PCRA. This appeal follows.
J-S47044-16

- 3 -

On appeal, Rinaldi raises the following issue for our consideration: As

applied, is 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543 unconstitutional?

Before we address the merits of Rinaldi’s claim on appeal, we must 

determine whether his petition was timely filed. Generally, a petition for 

PCRA relief, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within 

one year of the date the judgment is final. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); 

see also Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997). 

There are, however, exceptions to the time requirement, set forth at 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). Where the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, 

that an exception to the time for filing the petition is met, the petition will be 

considered timely. Id. These exceptions include interference by 

government officials in the presentation of the claim, after-discovered facts 

or evidence, and an after-recognized constitutional right. 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A PCRA petition invoking one of these exceptions must 

“be filed within 60 days of the date the claims could have been presented.” 

Id. at (b)(2). The timeliness requirements of the PCRA are jurisdictional in 

nature and, accordingly, a PCRA court cannot hear untimely petitions. 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003). 

Instantly, Rinaldi filed his PCRA petition on October 8, 2015. Rinaldi’s 

judgment of sentence became final, for purposes of the PCRA, on October 

25, 2003, after the time expired for him to file a direct appeal. Therefore, in 

order to be timely under the PCRA, Rinaldi would have had to have filed his 

petition by October 25, 2004. Accordingly, Rinaldi’s petition is facially 
J-S47044-16

- 4 -

untimely. However, we must determine whether Rinaldi has pled and 

proven an exception to the PCRA time bar.

In his petition, Rinaldi claims that he filed his petition within 60 days of 

learning about the Hopkins decision. Moreover, he alludes to the fact that 

this knowledge constitutes “Newly Discovered Evidence.” In Hopkins, our 

Supreme Court declared a mandatory minimum statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317,4

unconstitutional in light of principles announced in Alleyne v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that 

“facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to 

the jury” and must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 2163. A 

challenge to a sentence premised upon Alleyne implicates the legality of the 

sentence. Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86, 90 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(en banc). While legality of sentence is always subject to review within the 

PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the 

exceptions thereto. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vii). 

We conclude that Rinaldi is not entitled to relief. First, our courts have 

consistently held that a judicial opinion does not qualify as a previously 

unknown “fact” capable of triggering the newly-discovered fact exception 

under the PCRA. Commonwealth v. Watts, 611 Pa. 80, 23 A.3d 980, 986 

(Pa. 2011)). Additionally, in Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. 

____________________________________________

4 Section 6317 concerns drug-free school zones. That statute, in no way, 

applies to Rowe’s criminal case.
J-S47044-16

- 5 -

Super. 2014), the defendant also filed an untimely PCRA petition raising the 

claim that his mandatory minimum sentence was illegal. The Court 

reiterated that “in order for th[e] Court to review a legality of sentence 

claim, there must be a basis for [its] jurisdiction.” Id. at 995. In affirming 

the denial of PCRA relief, the Miller Court held that Alleyne is not to be 

applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence had become 

final. Id.

Because Rinaldi’s petition is facially untimely, because he does not 

allege and prove an exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA, 

and because Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral 

review, Miller, supra, he is not entitled to relief.

Even if we were to address Rinaldi’s petition on its merits, it would fail. 

Rinaldi claims that he was sentenced under section 1103 of the Crimes Code 

which is an unconstitutional mandatory minimum statute. He is mistaken. 

Rinaldi was convicted of third-degree murder. Under the Crimes Code, “[a] 

person who has been convicted of murder of the third degree . . . shall be 

sentenced to a term which shall be fixed by the court at not more than 40 

years.” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(d). Despite his collateral claims, Rinaldi was 

sentenced under section 1102, not section 1103. Section 1102 is the 

statutory maximum to which a person convicted of third-degree murder, like 

Rinaldi, may be sentenced. It is not a mandatory minimum sentence. 

Accordingly, Rinaldi was not sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence, 

and, as a result, no Alleyne concerns are implicated. See Rinaldi 
J-S47044-16

- 6 -

Guilty/Nolo Contendere Plea Colloquy, 9/26/03, at 1 (indicating no 

mandatory minimum penalty imposed on either murder or robbery 

offenses); see also SCI Commitment Forms, 10/15/03 (same); Sentencing 

Guideline Forms, 10/17/03, (same).5

Having found that the trial court properly dismissed Rinaldi’s petition, 

Blackwell, supra, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2016

____________________________________________

5 Although Rinaldi claims in his statement of questions presented that 

section 9543 of the PCRA is illegal, he never raises this issue in his PCRA 

petition or argues it in his appellate brief. Therefore it is waived. In any 

event, because Rinaldi was not sentenced pursuant to a mandatory 

minimum statute, he has no basis to challenge section 9543 on Alleyne 

principles.