Com. v. Bailey, D.
Com. v. Bailey, D. No. 764 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 7, 2017Background
- In 1994 Demetrius Bailey (born July 9, 1973) was convicted by jury of second-degree murder for a May 5, 1994 killing and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
- Direct appeal and discretionary review were denied; Bailey’s judgment of sentence was determined to be final on July 22, 1996.
- Bailey filed multiple post-conviction petitions; the present (sixth) PCRA petition was filed in late 2014 and the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition on April 20, 2016.
- Bailey argued ineffective assistance/abandonment by appellate counsel in his first PCRA, that his life-without-parole (LWOP) sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (invoking Miller/Montgomery), and that the court failed to provide proper notice and to address supplemental filings.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness (PCRA’s one-year jurisdictional time bar) and whether Bailey pleaded and proved a statutory exception allowing an untimely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Bailey contends exceptions apply (newly discovered facts or new constitutional rule) making his 2014 petition timely nunc pro tunc | Commonwealth argues judgment became final in 1996 and the 2014 petition is untimely absent proof of an exception | Petition is untimely; Bailey failed to plead or prove any §9545 exception, so PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Ineffective assistance/abandonment of appellate counsel in prior PCRA | Bailey claims counsel abandoned his first PCRA appeal, depriving him of appellate rights and meriting reinstatement | Commonwealth asserts ineffective-assistance claims do not excuse PCRA time-bar and Bailey didn’t show timely exception | Claim insufficient to overcome timeliness; court rejected as not meeting jurisdictional exception |
| Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment challenge to LWOP under Miller/Montgomery | Bailey argues Miller/Montgomery make LWOP for him unconstitutional and retroactive | Commonwealth notes Bailey was 20 at the offense so Miller (juvenile offenders under 18) does not apply | Court held Montgomery/Miller inapplicable because Bailey was over 18 when offense occurred; not a basis for timeliness or relief |
| Procedural defects in Rule 907 notice and Rule 1925(a) opinion | Bailey asserts he did not receive a copy of Rule 907 notice and the court failed to address supplemental filings | Commonwealth contends any service or opinion defects are immaterial when petition is jurisdictionally untimely | Court held any procedural deficiencies are not reversible error given clear untimeliness of petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Roney v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (review standards cited by court)
- Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; one-year rule and exceptions)
- Wharton v. Commonwealth, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance does not excuse PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (retroactivity of Miller v. Alabama)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller/Montgomery do not apply to offenders 18 or older)
- Commonwealth v. Ziegler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural defects do not cure untimely PCRA petitions)