Com. v. Blant, V.
Com. v. Blant v. No. 2020 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 25, 2017Background
- Victor Blant was convicted by a jury in 1995 of second‑degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and PIC; sentenced in 1996 to life imprisonment plus concurrent 5–10 years for robbery.
- Direct appeal resulted in partial affirmance; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in June 1997 and judgment became final September 22, 1997.
- Blant filed his third PCRA petition on August 2, 2012, invoking Miller-based relief and claiming his brain maturity was comparable to a juvenile.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice April 27, 2016, received Blant’s response, and dismissed the petition June 3, 2016 as untimely.
- On appeal, Blant argued Miller v. Alabama (and its retroactivity via Montgomery) applied or should be extended to 20‑year‑olds with immature brains; he also raised an Equal Protection argument citing Obergefell.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding the petition was untimely and Miller does not apply to defendants 18 or older at offense date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Blant: Miller created a newly recognized constitutional right triggering §9545(b)(1)(iii) and petition filed within 60 days | Commonwealth: Petition filed >1 year after finality and Miller does not apply to 20‑year‑old offender; time‑bar not excused | Dismissal affirmed; petition untimely because Miller inapplicable to age 20 offender |
| Applicability of Miller v. Alabama | Blant: Miller’s prohibition on mandatory LWOP should extend to those with immature brains (up to age 25) | Commonwealth: Miller protects only defendants <18 at offense; state precedents reject extension to older defendants | Miller does not apply to someone who was 20 at offense; Cintora/Furgess control |
| Equal Protection claim via Obergefell | Blant: Obergefell demonstrates unequal treatment warranting relief | Commonwealth: Obergefell concerns same‑sex marriage, unrelated to sentencing or Miller | Claim rejected as inapposite to sentencing and Miller issues |
| Retroactivity requirement | Blant: Montgomery made Miller retroactive to collateral review, so Miller triggers time‑bar exception | Commonwealth: Even with Montgomery retroactivity, Miller’s substantive reach excludes adults 18+ | Montgomery’s retroactivity does not help Blant because Miller’s substantive rule does not cover him |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (holding mandatory LWOP unconstitutional for offenders under 18)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (holding Miller is retroactive on state collateral review)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (holding state bans on same‑sex marriage violate Equal Protection/Due Process)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (refusing to extend Miller to defendants 18 or older)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reaffirming that Miller does not apply to those 18 or older)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez‑Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)