Com. v. Cartair, A.
Docket: 2710 EDA 2017
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; June 29, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Amir Cartair appeals the dismissal of his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition as untimely. Cartair, serving a life sentence without parole for first-degree murder, argues that the PCRA court should have jurisdiction over his petition due to the Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States, which mandates that factors increasing mandatory minimum sentences must be determined by a jury or admitted by the defendant. Cartair's conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1996, and he did not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He filed his first PCRA petition in 2012, claiming his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits mandatory life sentences for juveniles. In 2016, he submitted additional petitions citing Alleyne. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who found no merit in Cartair’s claims, leading to the dismissal of the petition as untimely. On appeal, Cartair concedes that his petition is facially untimely but argues that illegal sentences are exempt from the PCRA’s time constraints, citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 and Commonwealth v. Vasquez. However, the court clarified that while legality of sentence claims are not waivable, they can be lost if raised in an untimely PCRA petition without any applicable exceptions to the time bar. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Cartair’s claims due to the untimeliness, affirming the dismissal of his petition. The order of the PCRA court is affirmed, and the judgment is entered.