J. S82028/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

DAVID HUGGINS, JR., :

:

Appellant : No. 945 MDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 4, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-36-CR-0000181-2010 

BEFORE: OTT, DUBOW, AND PLATT, JJ.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2017

Appellant, David Huggins, Jr., appeals from the Order entered in the 

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first Petition filed 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, as 

untimely. After careful review, we affirm on the basis that Appellant’s PCRA 

Petition is untimely and, thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the 

Petition.

On April 19, 2011, a jury convicted Appellant of Corrupt Organizations, 

Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, and four 

counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance.1 On 

August 4, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 

 

* Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 911, 903, 7512, and 35 P.S. § 780–113(a)(30), respectively.
J.S82028/16

- 2 -

91⁄2 to 19 years’ incarceration. The trial court imposed three mandatory 

minimum sentences pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(ii). See N.T. 

Sentencing, 8/4/2011, at 33-34; PCRA Court Opinion, dated 5/4/16, at 6 

n.6; Jury Verdict Sheet, dated 4/19/11, at 1-3.

This Court affirmed the Judgment of Sentence on May 7, 2013, and 

our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on November 19, 2013. 

Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal 

denied, 80 A.3d 775 (Pa. 2013). Appellant did not seek review by the U.S. 

Supreme Court. Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence, therefore, became final 

on February 17, 2014. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13.

Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his first, on November 

5, 2015, raising an Alleyne claim.2 The PCRA court appointed counsel, and 

counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley.

3

On March 14, 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice 

advising Appellant of its intent to dismiss his Petition. Appellant filed a 

response on April 4, 2016, repeating his illegal sentencing claim. On May 4, 

2016, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s Petition without a hearing, 

 

2 Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013), 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. Id., 133 S.Ct. at 2160-61.

3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
J.S82028/16

- 3 -

concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s underlying claim 

because the Petition was untimely and Appellant had failed to plead and 

prove any one of the timeliness exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S.§ 

9545(b)(1).

Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The PCRA court filed a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, but did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) 

Statement.

Appellant presents three issues for our review:

1) Whether the case of [Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct 

2151 (U.S. 2013),] can be applied to the Appellant’s case based 

on recent court decisions?

2) Whether the Appellant is serving an illegal sentence?

3) Whether [Appellant] was denied his Sixth Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution [and] his constitutionally guaranteed right to 

due process[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (capitalization omitted).

We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the 

record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its Order is otherwise 

free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 

2014). There is no right to a PCRA hearing; a hearing is unnecessary where 

the PCRA court can determine from the record that there are no genuine 

issues of material fact. Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. 

Super. 2008).
J.S82028/16

- 4 -

Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must first 

determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA 

Petition. See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa. 2008) 

(explaining that the timeliness of a PCRA Petition is a jurisdictional 

requisite).

Under the PCRA, any Petition “including a second or subsequent 

petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes 

final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). A Judgment of Sentence becomes final 

“at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the 

Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 

or the expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). 

The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a court 

may not address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not 

timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 

2010).

Here, Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence became final on February 17, 

2014, upon expiration of the time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with 

the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); U.S. Sup. 

Ct. R. 13. In order to be timely, Appellant needed to submit his PCRA 

Petition by February 17, 2015. Appellant filed this PCRA Petition on 

November 5, 2015, well after the one-year deadline. The PCRA court 
J.S82028/16

- 5 -

properly concluded that Appellant’s Petition is facially untimely. PCRA Court 

Opinion, dated 5/4/16, at 7-8.

Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition, however, 

if the appellant pleads and proves one of the three exceptions set forth in 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), which provides the following:

(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

(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. 

(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) 

shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have 

been presented.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)-(2).

Appellant attempts to invoke the timeliness exception under Section 

9545(b)(1)(iii) in his challenge to the legality of his sentence by relying on 

Alleyne, supra. As long as this Court has jurisdiction over the matter, a 
J.S82028/16

- 6 -

legality of sentencing issue is reviewable and cannot be waived. 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179, 182 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

However, a legality of sentencing issue must be raised in a timely filed PCRA 

Petition over which we have jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b); 

Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (“Although 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.”); 

Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058, 1064-67 (Pa. Super. 2015); 

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995-96 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(explaining that the decision in Alleyne does not invalidate a mandatory 

minimum sentence when presented in an untimely PCRA Petition); 

Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54, 56 (Pa. Super. 2015) (remanding 

for resentencing without mandatory minimum where defendant was 

sentenced 12 days before Alleyne, his judgment of sentence was not final 

on the date Alleyne was decided, and the defendant filed a timely PCRA 

Petition over which this Court had jurisdiction).

The United States Supreme Court decided Alleyne on June 17, 2013. 

Appellant’s direct appeal was pending at that time. Although he could have 

raised Alleyne in a timely PCRA petition because his appeal was pending 

when Alleyne was decided, he did not. Rather, he raised the claim nine 

months after the PCRA’s one-year deadline had passed.
J.S82028/16

- 7 -

Our Supreme Court has recently reiterated that Alleyne does not 

apply retroactively on post-conviction collateral review. See

Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016).

Accordingly, the PCRA court properly concluded that Appellant failed to 

plead and prove any of the timeliness exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(1), and properly dismissed Appellant’s Petition as untimely. See

PCRA Court Opinion, dated 5/4/16, at 9-10. We, thus, affirm the denial of 

PCRA relief.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/12/2017