Com. v. Deloatch, A.
Com. v. Deloatch, A. No. 119 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- DeLoatch was convicted after a non-jury trial of first‑degree murder and related charges in 1990 and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994.
- This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on direct appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 1995.
- DeLoatch filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (five) which were dismissed; the present (sixth) PCRA petition was filed August 3, 2012.
- He also filed a separate Motion to Vacate Judgment Procured Through Fraud, which the PCRA court treated as a supplement to the PCRA petition.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition; DeLoatch appealed the dismissal.
- DeLoatch argued, among other things, a Brady claim and raised a Miller v. Alabama argument; the court found the Miller claim inapplicable because he was 21 at the time of the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | DeLoatch argued his claims merited review (Brady, fraud, Miller) despite filing in 2012 | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely and no timeliness exception was pleaded | Petition is patently untimely; DeLoatch failed to plead any statutory timeliness exception, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Previously litigated Brady claim | DeLoatch reasserted that the DA withheld exculpatory evidence and allowed a witness to lie | Commonwealth pointed to prior adjudication of the Brady claim in earlier PCRA proceedings | Brady claim was previously litigated and cannot be relitigated under PCRA bar to previously litigated issues |
| Applicability of Miller v. Alabama | DeLoatch contended Miller invalidated his sentence as illegal | Commonwealth noted Miller applies only to juvenile offenders and DeLoatch was 21 at the offense | Miller inapplicable because DeLoatch was over 18 at the time of the crime |
| Jurisdiction to consider merits | DeLoatch asked court to consider his substantive claims despite delay | Commonwealth maintained courts lack jurisdiction over untimely PCRA petitions absent statute exceptions | Court affirmed it lacked jurisdiction due to untimeliness and absence of any pleaded exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. DeLoatch, 665 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1995) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller limited to juvenile offenders)