When the Supreme Court decides a case that creates a previously unrecognized constitutional right, they never decide the issue of retroactivity in that same case. The Court doesn't address issues that aren't before it; logically, the retroactivity issue can't be addressed in the same case that announced the right.
In my opinion--and others may well disagree--the appellate courts will rule that Alleyne is not retroactive. From a practical perspective, if Alleyne was retroactive thousands of PA defendants would need to be resentenced. It would create an enormous burden on the courts. Although that may not be part of the retroactivity analysis under Teague v. Lane, it likely will be in the back of any judge's mind when addressing retroactivity.
Such an elaborate legal analysis should be presented to your counsel of record for a research and applicability to your fact pattern.
The answer given above by the lawyer serves for educational purposes only and provides general information and a basic understanding of the applicable law. Take notice that the answer above does not create an attorney-client relationship as this website is not intended to provide anyone a specific legal advice. Anyone using the site expressly consents that there is no attorney client privilege between any person and any attorney responding.
Further take notice that the site should not be used as a crude substitute for any professional and competent legal advice by a licensed professional attorney in the applicable jurisdiction.
The attorney above attempted to provide competent professional information, however, the law and its applications may change frequently and vary greatly from other U.S. jurisdictions and locales.
Therefore, any information and materials provided above are general in nature, and may not apply to specific factual and legal circumstances related to one's personal legal issues.
Contact an experienced lawyer admitted to practice in your State under an attorney-client privilege to further receive a competent legal advice before making any important decisions about your particular legal issue. For further inquiries please contact:
Attorney Alexander Ivakhnenko
1021 West Adams, 102, Chicago, Illinois 60607
The issue raised will need to be addressed by competent criminal defense counsel. A recent case from Illinois District Court is U.S. v. Gerald Osborn, N.D. Illinois July 19, 2013. The decision considered a claim by movant Osborn who had pled guilty. The facts are not what you raise, but the Alleyene case was at least noted, though not necessarily in a favorable context to your sentencing issue.
Here is an excerpted quote from the decision: "Osborn has failed, however, to show that the Supreme Court has made its holding in Peugh retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. A new rule of constitutional law such as that stated in Peugh is only applicable to Osborn if it has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. See Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005). The Supreme Court did not declare in Peugh that its new rule applies retroactively on collateral review and it is not likely that it will do so. See Simpson v. United States, No. 13–237, ––– F.3d ––––, 2013 WL 3455876, at *1 (7th Cir. July 10, 2013) (noting that the new constitutional rule announced in Alleyne v. United States, 570 ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2151, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2013 WL 2922116 (June 17, 2013), had not been made retroactively applicable on collateral review, and that Alleyne is an extension of Apprendi, which itself is not retroactive)." Good luck.