Opinion
J-S12045-17 No. 1364 MDA 2016
04-13-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NOEL CARLOS RIVERA, JR., Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 22, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-36-CR-0004301-2000, CP-36-CR-0004302-2000, CP-36-CR-0004303-2000, CP-36-CR-0004304-2000, CP-36-CR-0004305-2000 BEFORE: PANELLA, OTT and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Noel Carlos Rivera, Jr. ("Rivera"), appeals pro se from the Order dismissing his fourth Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. We affirm.
In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 6/23/16, at 1-2.
On June 23, 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of its intent to dismiss Rivera's Petition. Rivera filed a pro se Objection to the PCRA court's Rule 907 Notice. On July 22, 2016, the PCRA court issued an Order dismissing the Petition. Rivera filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Rivera raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), holding that the State collateral courts must now enforce substantive federal Constitutional rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court applies exclusively to just juvenile homicide offenders serving mandatory life without parole sentences; and, if not, whether Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), applies to [] Rivera's sentence under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b)(1)(iii)'s exception for such substantive federal Constitutional rules?Brief for Appellant at 4.
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This Court may affirm a PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the record supports it. We grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Further, where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
On appeal, Rivera contends that the PCRA court erred by determining that Montgomery has no application to Rivera's case because he was not sentenced for homicide, and was not a juvenile at the time he committed his offenses. Brief for Appellant at 10. Rivera asserts that the retroactivity ruling announced in Montgomery was not limited to juvenile homicide offenders serving mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole. Id. Rivera claims that, when ruling on his Petition, the PCRA court did not have the benefit of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Commonwealth v. Washington , 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016), which, Rivera argues, "clearly left the door open" for broader retroactivity jurisprudence. Brief for Appellant at 11.
In its Opinion, the PCRA court thoroughly addressed Rivera's issue, set forth the relevant law, and determined that the issue lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 6/23/16, at 2-8. We agree with the reasoning of the PCRA court, and affirm on this basis. See id.
We further conclude that Rivera's reliance on Washington is misplaced, as our Supreme Court expressly ruled therein that " Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review." Washington , 142 A.3d at 820.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/13/2017
Image materials not available for display.