Com. v. Beecham, S.
Com. v. Beecham, S. No. 2159 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 8, 2017Background
- St. Aubyn Beecham was convicted by a jury in 2000 of first‑degree murder, robbery, and related offenses; sentenced to life without parole for murder.
- This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in 2002; Beecham did not seek further direct review.
- Beecham filed a first PCRA petition in 2004; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and the petition was denied in 2005.
- In 2012 Beecham filed a second pro se PCRA petition invoking Miller (2012) and later Montgomery (2016) as newly recognized constitutional rights entitling him to relief.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2012 petition as untimely on June 21, 2016; Beecham appealed pro se.
- The court concluded Beecham was 19 at the time of the offenses, so Miller/Montgomery (which apply to offenders under 18) do not provide a timeliness exception; prior Pennsylvania decisions rejecting extension to older young adults were cited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beecham's 2012 PCRA petition is timely | Miller/Montgomery announce a new constitutional right that triggers the 60‑day exception, allowing late filing | Petition is untimely because judgment became final in 2002 and Miller/Montgomery do not apply to offenders who were 18 or older | Petition is untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery should extend to offenders older than 18 (e.g., under 25) | Brain science shows immaturity extends into mid‑20s, so Miller protections should apply to those under 25 | Miller/Montgomery apply only to those under 18; Pennsylvania precedent rejects extension to older young adults | Court rejects extension; Miller/Montgomery do not apply to Beecham (who was 19) |
| Whether Alleyne provides retroactive relief on collateral review | Alleyne reduces mandatory minimums and may affect sentences | Alleyne is not a substantive/watershed rule warranting retroactive application and does not apply to life for first‑degree murder | Alleyne provides no relief here |
| Whether any timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) saves the petition | Miller/Montgomery create a new right under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) that was timely asserted | Even if new, Miller/Montgomery are inapplicable to this defendant; thus no exception applies | No applicable timeliness exception; PCRA dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for those under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively on state collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (increased mandatory minimums by judicial factfinding; Court held not retroactively applicable as a basis here)
- Commonwealth v. Beecham, 808 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate decision affirming convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (declining to extend Miller/Montgomery protections to a 19‑year‑old)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa.) (Alleyne not a substantive or watershed rule warranting retroactive application)