Com. v. Sanders, W. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S85004-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILLIAM C. SANDERS Appellant No. 3545 EDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order November 5, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0612601-2003 CP-51-CR-0613251-2003 CP-51-CR-0613281-2003 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., RANSOM, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 27, 2016 Appellant, William C. Sanders, appeals pro se from the order dismissing, without a hearing, his second petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). Sanders contends that the PCRA court erred in concluding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain his claim that he is serving an illegal mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). After careful review, we conclude that not only does Alleyne provide no jurisdiction, but further that Sanders is not serving a mandatory minimum sentence. We therefore affirm. On December 21, 2004, Sanders was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 25 to 50 years based upon three convictions each of robbery and criminal conspiracy. This Court affirmed the judgment of J-S85004-16 sentence, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal on September 14, 2006. Sanders filed a first, timely PCRA petition and counsel was appointed to represent him. Counsel was permitted to withdraw, and the petition was subsequently dismissed. Sanders did not appeal from the dismissal. Sanders filed the instant petition, his second, on October 9, 2014, asserting that his sentence was illegal under Alleyne. After the PCRA court provided notice of its intent to dismiss the petition, Sanders filed a response, and the PCRA court ultimately dismissed the petition as time-barred. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Sanders argues that his sentence is illegal under Alleyne. However, he does not identify the statute which applied to the sentence imposed. Furthermore, as the PCRA court notes in its opinion on appeal, the record reveals that Sanders did not receive a mandatory minimum sentence on any charge. Regardless of the accuracy of Sander’s assertion, a claim that a petitioner is serving a sentence that is illegal under Alleyne is incapable of establishing jurisdiction for an otherwise untimely claim under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014). Sanders’s current PCRA petition was filed over 8 years after his judgment of sentence became final, and is therefore patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. -2- J-S85004-16 § 9545(b)(1). We therefore conclude that the PCRA court correctly dismissed the petition and affirm. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/27/2016 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
