Com. v. Chumley, R.
Com. v. Chumley, R. No. 281 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- In 1976 Randall Hoyt Chumley pleaded guilty to murder; after a degree of guilt hearing he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1976.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed in 1978; U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1979, making his judgment of sentence final that year.
- Appellant filed his fifth PCRA petition on August 9, 2016, asserting claims grounded in changes to Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing doctrine (Miller and Montgomery).
- The PCRA court appointed counsel, received an amended petition, issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss, and dismissed the petition on January 26, 2017 without a hearing.
- Appellant appealed pro se. The Superior Court considered whether the petition was timely under the PCRA and whether the Miller/Montgomery exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition is timely | Chumley contends Miller/Montgomery create a new constitutional right that makes his 2016 petition timely under §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Petition is facially untimely (judgment final 1979); Miller/Montgomery do not apply because he was 19 at offense | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery apply retroactively to him | Relies on Miller and Montgomery to invoke retroactivity exception | Miller/Montgomery only protect those who were juveniles (<18) at offense | Miller/Montgomery not applicable because appellant was 19 at the time of the crime |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing was improper | Implicitly argues entitlement to relief and hearing | Because petitioner failed to plead facts establishing a timeliness exception, no hearing required | Dismissal without a hearing proper under Albrecht because timeliness exception not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile homicide offenders unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Chumley, 394 A.2d 497 (Pa. 1978) (affirming conviction and sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness under the PCRA is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller does not apply to offenders 18 or older at the time of the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA petition may be dismissed without a hearing where petitioner fails to plead a timeliness exception)