Com. v. Charles, B.
33 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Appellant Brian Charles was convicted in 1995 of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a consecutive 5–10 year term.
- Direct appeal and post-trial ineffectiveness proceedings occurred in the 1990s; judgment of sentence became final in 1998 after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur.
- Appellant, age 21 at the time of the offenses, filed a PCRA petition in 2016 challenging his mandatory life-without-parole sentence as unconstitutional under Miller and Montgomery.
- The 2016 petition was facially untimely because it was filed roughly 17 years after the judgment became final; relief depends on an exception to the PCRA one-year time bar (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)).
- Appellant argued the after-recognized constitutional-rights exception applies based on Miller (and retroactivity under Montgomery) and alternatively raised equal-protection and Eighth Amendment claims.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Miller/Montgomery do not help an offender who was an adult (21) at the time of the crime and rejecting the equal-protection/Eighth Amendment grounds as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) | Charles contends Miller/Montgomery create an after-recognized constitutional right making his 2016 petition timely | Commonwealth argues petition is facially untimely and no exception applies because Miller/Montgomery do not apply to adults | Dismissed as untimely; no jurisdiction because no applicable timeliness exception |
| Applicability of Miller/Montgomery to a 21-year-old offender | Charles asserts Miller’s Eighth Amendment principles or Montgomery’s retroactivity should apply to him | Commonwealth contends Miller applies only to offenders under 18; Charles was 21 so Miller/Montgomery are inapplicable | Miller does not apply to defendants 18 or older; Montgomery does not change that result |
| Equal Protection / Eighth Amendment independent claims | Charles argues adults are entitled to the same protections as juveniles under equal protection and Eighth Amendment grounds | Commonwealth argues Charles is not similarly situated to juveniles and constitutional claims do not overcome PCRA timeliness rules | Claims fail: not similarly situated to juveniles; constitutional character does not excuse untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (holding mandatory LWOP for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (holding Miller announces a substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (describing the principle that Equal Protection requires similarly situated persons be treated alike)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (legality of sentence review still subject to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness requirements must be met even for legality claims)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (constitutional dimension of a claim does not overcome PCRA timeliness restrictions)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller does not apply to defendants who were 18 or older at the time of their crimes)