Com. v. Byrd, J.
3760 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Jacquin Jaron Byrd was convicted in 2007 of first-degree murder, PIC, and unsworn falsification for the 2006 death of Sarah Boone and sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional terms.
- Byrd’s direct appeal and subsequent appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were denied; his judgment of sentence became final on November 25, 2008.
- Byrd filed a first, timely, counseled PCRA petition in 2009 which was denied after an evidentiary hearing; that denial was affirmed and review was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- On September 3, 2015, Byrd filed a pro se second PCRA petition challenging his life sentence as an equal protection violation and relying on Obergefell v. Hodges; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely when Byrd did not respond.
- The PCRA court concluded Byrd’s 2015 petition was facially untimely (one-year filing period expired November 25, 2009) and that Obergefell did not create a newly recognized constitutional right applicable retroactively to criminal cases; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Byrd: petition filed within 60 days of Obergefell and invokes newly recognized constitutional right exception | Commonwealth: petition filed ~6 years after the one-year deadline; Obergefell does not create a retroactive criminal-law right | Court: Petition untimely; Obergefell does not satisfy the newly-recognized-right exception |
| Applicability of Obergefell to criminal sentencing | Byrd: Obergefell’s Equal Protection principles extend to parole-eligibility disparity for life sentences across states | Commonwealth: Obergefell addressed same-sex marriage, not criminal sentencing or parole; no indication of retroactivity | Court: Obergefell does not demonstrate intent to create a new principle applicable retroactively to post-conviction criminal review |
| Jurisdiction to reach merits | Byrd: court should consider his claims and hold an evidentiary hearing on actual innocence | Commonwealth: court lacks jurisdiction because petition is time-barred and exceptions not pleaded/proved | Court: Lacking a timeliness exception, court lacked jurisdiction; no evidentiary hearing required |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on actual innocence | Byrd: asserted evidence of actual innocence warrants a hearing | Commonwealth: no genuine material factual disputes once petition is untimely; procedural bar prevents merits inquiry | Court: No hearing required where petition is untimely and exceptions not established; PCRA court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex marriage decision applying Equal Protection and Due Process principles)
- Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108 (Pa. 2012) (standard for when evidentiary hearing is required on PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2011) (deference to PCRA court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Byrd, 32 A.3d 833 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prior appeal affirming denial of Byrd’s first PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Byrd, 953 A.2d 824 (Pa. Super. 2008) (memorandum affirming judgment of sentence on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (right to proceed pro se after colloquy)