Com. v. Deblois, C.
860 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Charles DeBlois was convicted of first-degree murder in 1981 and sentenced to life without parole on Feb. 28, 1983.
- Direct appeal affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on April 28, 1986; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on Nov. 18, 1986; judgment became final Jan. 19, 1987.
- DeBlois filed multiple PCRA petitions; the instant (fourth) petition was filed March 22, 2016 (prison mailbox rule).
- The PCRA court treated the petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) and dismissed it after a Rule 907 notice; DeBlois appealed pro se.
- DeBlois argued Miller/Montgomery retroactivity (and related constitutional/jurisdictional claims); the court found Miller applies only to juvenile offenders and DeBlois was 20 at the time of the crime.
- Court concluded no timeliness exception applied (including the Miller retroactivity exception) and affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | DeBlois contends his petition (filed Mar. 22, 2016) is timely or falls within an exception | Commonwealth argues petition is untimely (judgment final Jan. 19, 1987) and no exception applies | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Retroactive application of Miller/Montgomery | DeBlois invokes Miller/Montgomery to claim a newly recognized constitutional right retroactively applies | Commonwealth: Miller applies only to juvenile offenders; DeBlois was an adult (age 20) when offense occurred | Miller/Montgomery inapplicable because they protect juveniles; DeBlois not entitled to §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception |
| Invocation of other constitutional/jurisdictional grounds | DeBlois asserts court has inherent/statutory/constitutional power to hear claims and that constitutional protections require consideration | Commonwealth: jurisdictional PCRA time limits are mandatory; court cannot reach merits without timely filing or exception | Court rejected these jurisdictional and constitutional arguments because statutory filing deadline is jurisdictional and not met |
| Grace period / applicability to multiple petitions | DeBlois suggests prior amendments or grace period might allow filing | Commonwealth: grace proviso for first PCRA petitions ended and does not apply to subsequent petitions; this is DeBlois’s fourth petition | Grace period inapplicable to subsequent petitions; petition untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller is substantive and applies retroactively to juvenile sentences)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty prohibited for offenders under 18; children are constitutionally different)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (grace period to file first PCRA petitions explained)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denial)