Alleyne v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
5,846 later cases cite Alleyne v. United States; 575 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Alleyne v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
In re: Payne · Tenth Circuit · filed
The Court has not held that Alleyne applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Barrow v. United States · D.P.R. · filed
Thus the Alleyne decision is not applied retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Sherman Dionne Chester v. Warden · Eleventh Circuit (nonprecedential) · filed
Second, because it is based on the Apprendi rule, Alleyne’s rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Susinka v. United States · N.D. Ill. · filed
This Court declines to depart from the general rule that Al-leyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review. Accordingly, the intervening decision in Alleyne does not provide grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the Petition.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Paez-Fontana v. United States · D.P.R. · filed
Thus Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151 is not applied retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Pate, L. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
In the instant case, although Appellant claims the applicability of section 9545(b)(1)(iii) based on Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court has not held that Alleyne applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
United States v. Gassew · E.D. Pa. · filed
To the extent that Gassew seeks relief directly on the basis of the Supreme Court’s holding in Alleyne, his claim is also denied because "Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Dwight Daryl Owens v. United States · Eleventh Circuit (nonprecedential) · filed
In Jeanty v. Warden, FCI-Miami, 757 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014), we decided that Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and affirmed a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on that basis.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Feliciano-Rodriguez v. United States · D.P.R. · filed
Clearly, Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151 reads like and is an extension of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), as petitioner clearly notes, and did set forth a new rule of constitutional law. However, the rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
United States v. Carvahlo · D. Mass. · filed
Carvahlo’s argument fails because Alleyne’s sea change in the law is not retroactively applicable to his case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Richard Crayton v. United States · Seventh Circuit · filed
But we conclude that the other circuits are correct. Alleyne does not apply retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Duran, A., III · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Appellant’s case was at the collateral stage when Alleyne was decided (June 23, 2013), and Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Nicole Walker v. United States · Eighth Circuit · filed
We now join those circuit courts holding that even if Alleyne announced a new constitutional rule, that rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Pelkey, N. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
While this Court has held that Alleyne applies retroactively to cases that were on direct appeal when Alleyne was issued, we have declined to construe that decision as applying retroactively to cases during PCRA review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Lane, D. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
While this Court has held that Alleyne applies retroactively to cases that were on direct appeal when Alleyne was issued, we have declined to construe that decision as applying retroactively to cases during PCRA review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Miller, G. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
However, the Alleyne decision is silent with regard to whether it applies retroactively to cases pending on collateral review and upon review, Munday held that Alleyne was applicable to cases on direct review at the time of its decision. Therefore, [Appellant] did not successfully invoke the after-recognized constitutional exception, and there was not jurisdiction to address the merits of his claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Colon, J. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Moreover, our Supreme Court recently held that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Alleyne unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Com. v. Jones, M. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
While this Court has held that Alleyne applies to cases that were on direct appeal when Alleyne was issued, we have declined to construe that decision as applying retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence has become final.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Rayford, J. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Indeed, our Supreme Court recently held that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Davis, T. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Even assuming that Alleyne did announce a new constitutional right, neither our Supreme Court, nor the United States Supreme Court has held that Alleyne is to be applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence had become final. This is fatal to Appellant’s argument regarding the PCRA time-bar.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Hopkins, W. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Indeed, our Supreme Court recently held that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Ross, S. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition, reasoning in pertinent part that under Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015), Alleyne did not apply retroactively on post-conviction review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Jennifer Krieger v. United States · Seventh Circuit · filed
For that reason, this court vacated the portion of its certificate of appealability that allowed for claims under Alleyne, noting that it does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
United States v. Lamont LaPrade · Third Circuit (nonprecedential) · filed
Although we held “Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review[,]” United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 136 (3d Cir. 2014), LaPrade is able to seek relief by asserting an Alleyne violation because his case was not yet final when Alleyne was decided.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Pagan, M. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Moreover, in Washington, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the retroactive effect of Alleyne and held “that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Woodruff, M. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
(See PCRA Court Opinion, filed May 17, 2017, at 3-7) (finding: neither Pennsylvania Supreme Court nor United States Supreme Court has declared Alleyne2 retroactive to cases in which defendant’s judgment of sentence was already final before Alleyne decision; at time of Appellant’s sentencing, Pennsylvania law provided that mandatory minimum sentencing statutes did not violate Apprendi,3 so long as mandatory minimum sentence did not increase overall penalty for crime beyond statutory maximum;4 United States Supreme Court decided Alleyne on June 17, 2013, after Appellant’s judgment of sentence was final; if counsel had made Apprendi challenge at time of Appellant’s sentencing, it would have ____________________________________________ 2 Alleyne v.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Haynes, A. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
2016) (en banc) (holding that, while a mandatory sentencing statute was rendered illegal by Alleyne, it was not rendered void ab initio, and thus the defendant’s sentence was not illegal when imposed and Alleyne did not apply retroactively).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Baker, R. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Ciccone was withdrawn following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016) (“We hold that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review . . .”).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Woodson, L. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
2016), Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review; and (2) the photograph taken in 2006 is not newly- discovered evidence, as Woodson was present when the photograph was taken and he could have obtained the photograph earlier with the exercise of due diligence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Moore v. Kallis · N.D.W. Va. · filed
Specifically, Magistrate Judge Seibert found that the cases petitioner relies on—Mathis, Alleyne, and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013)—do not apply retroactively on collateral review in this circuit [Id.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Anderson v. Ormond · E.D. Ky. · filed
and hence the federal courts of appeal have consistently held that Alleyne is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
United States v. Stanback · W.D. Va. · filed
The government argues, correctly, that neither Apprendi nor Alleyne are retroactively applicable on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
United States v. Smith · W.D. Va. · filed
The government argues, correctly, that neither Apprendi nor Alleyne are retroactively applicable on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Com. v. Marcelis, R. · Pennsylvania Superior Court (nonprecedential) · filed
Moreover, it is well established that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral attacks upon a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence raised in PCRA proceedings. Commonwealth v. Washington, 636 Pa. 301, 316, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
Frederick v. United States · E.D.N.Y. · filed
The Second Circuit found that the rule promulgated from Alleyne falls within neither of those categories, and because the Alleyne rule is not retroactive on collateral review, petitioner’s motion was groundless.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review after the judgment became final.
State v. Coleman · Supreme Court of Kansas · filed
The Kirtdoll II court agreed with the district court and held that the rule of law declared in Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to invalidate a sentence that was final when the Alleyne decision was released.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Western District of Michigan held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and therefore could not supply a new limitations start date for the petitioner’s habeas claim.
Boone v. Davids · Western District of Michigan · filed
There is little doubt that Alleyne expanded the Sixth Amendment’s protection to cover a circumstance that the amendment did not cover before. But recognition of a new right is not the only requirement for the later period of limitation start date under § 2244(d)(1)(C). Petitioner must also show that the new right was “made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). In In re Mazzio, 756 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit held that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.” Mazzio, 756 F.3d at 491. Accordingly, § 2244(d)(1)(C) does not offer a later period of limitations start date for Petitioner’s first habeas ground.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Western District of Michigan held that Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and therefore could not supply a new limitations start date for the petitioner’s habeas claim.
Boone v. Davids · Western District of Michigan · filed
There is little doubt that Alleyne expanded the Sixth Amendment’s protection to cover a circumstance that the amendment did not cover before. But recognition of a new right is not the only requirement for the later period of limitation start date under § 2244(d)(1)(C). Petitioner must also show that the new right was “made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). In In re Mazzio, 756 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit held that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.” Mazzio, 756 F.3d at 491. Accordingly, § 2244(d)(1)(C) does not offer a later period of limitations start date for Petitioner’s first habeas ground.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alleyne v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace