Com. of Pa. v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359

Background

In 2002 Stephen Montgomery (age 22 at the time of the offense) was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) as required by statute.
Montgomery’s judgment became final in January 2006 after direct review; he filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years, including a third petition pending when he filed a fourth in March 2016. The fourth was dismissed as untimely on June 2, 2016.
The PCRA court treated the fourth filing as a PCRA petition and dismissed it for failing to plead an applicable timeliness exception; Montgomery argued Miller/Montgomery entitled him to relief despite being over 18 at the time of the offense.
The Superior Court en banc considered (1) whether a PCRA court may hear a subsequently filed PCRA petition while an earlier petition is still pending before that court and (2) whether Miller/Montgomery applies to adults whose brains were allegedly not fully developed at the time of their crimes.
The court also addressed whether Montgomery’s filing should have been treated as a habeas corpus petition rather than a PCRA petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a PCRA court has jurisdiction to decide a subsequent PCRA petition while an earlier PCRA petition is pending before the same court	Montgomery: court may consider a later petition even if an earlier one is pending	Commonwealth: agrees PCRA court may consider subsequent petitions unless prior petition is on appeal	Court: PCRA courts may entertain multiple petitions relating to the same judgment concurrently unless a prior PCRA order is under appellate review (i.e., not final)
Whether Miller v. Alabama / Montgomery v. Louisiana provides a timeliness exception for adults (22 at offense) claiming undeveloped brains	Montgomery: Miller’s prohibition on mandatory LWOP should apply to adults with underdeveloped brains; Montgomery made Miller retroactive	Commonwealth: Miller applies to juveniles (under 18); Montgomery made Miller retroactive only for juveniles — does not extend to adults	Court: Miller applies only to offenders under 18; adult (22) cannot invoke Miller/Montgomery timeliness exception; petition untimely
Whether the petition should have been treated as a habeas corpus petition instead of a PCRA petition	Montgomery: court should have treated his filing as habeas corpus and granted relief for illegal sentence	Commonwealth: filing alleges an illegal sentence but such claims fall within PCRA exclusivity	Court: Petition properly characterized as PCRA because PCRA is the exclusive vehicle for collateral claims alleging illegal sentence
Whether Montgomery is entitled to relief from mandatory LWOP under the Equal Protection Clause	Montgomery: argues Miller should be extended under Fourteenth Amendment to adults who have underdeveloped brains	Commonwealth: no Supreme Court or state high court extension of Miller to adults; extension cannot be judicially created for individual claims	Court: Extension not recognized by higher courts; attempt to extend Miller to adults fails; timeliness exception not met

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (holds subsequent PCRA petition barred while prior PCRA order is under appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012) (permits filing of subsequent PCRA petition where prior petition was held in abeyance and no appeal pending; clarifies Lark’s scope)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment: mandatory LWOP unconstitutional for juvenile homicide offenders)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (makes Miller retroactive to cases on collateral review for juvenile offenders)
Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applies Miller strictly to those under 18 and rejects extension to adults claiming underdeveloped brains)
Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (confirms PCRA is exclusive means for collateral relief, subsuming habeas claims)