Com. v. Floyd, T.
3403 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Theodore Floyd was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy in 1978 and sentenced to life imprisonment; Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed in 1981.
- Floyd filed prior post-conviction petitions (PCHA/PCRA) in 1984 and 1993; both were denied on the merits or procedural grounds.
- He filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on August 13, 2012 (his third PCRA petition), later amended in 2016.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on October 6, 2016 as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- Floyd argued he qualified for the timeliness exception under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) by relying on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery and on an Illinois decision (People v. House) to challenge his life sentence because he was 18 at the time of the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Floyd's 2012 PCRA petition is timely or fits an exception to the one-year rule | Floyd contends Miller/Montgomery and analogous Illinois authority render his claim a newly recognized constitutional right triggering § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth argues petition is untimely; Miller/Montgomery apply only to those <18 at offense; House is an Illinois decision and not a binding new rule of US or PA Supreme Court | Court held petition untimely; no applicable exception under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) because Floyd was 18 at the time of the offense and House is inapplicable |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery retroactively entitle Floyd to relief | Floyd asserts Miller/Montgomery recognize youth-based Eighth Amendment protection extending to him because of adolescence research | Commonwealth asserts Miller/Montgomery apply only to offenders younger than 18; Floyd was 18, so he is outside their scope | Court rejected Floyd's reliance on Miller/Montgomery; they do not apply to those 18 or older at offense |
| Whether an out‑of‑state intermediate appellate decision (People v. House) can satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Floyd argues House supports extending juvenile-sentencing principles to older youth and should be given full faith and credit effect | Commonwealth contends § 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires a new constitutional right recognized by the US or PA Supreme Court, not an Illinois appellate court | Court held House cannot create the required Pennsylvania/US Supreme Court rule and thus does not satisfy the timeliness exception |
| Jurisdiction to consider merits of Floyd's claims | Floyd seeks merits review based on exceptions he asserts | Commonwealth argues lack of jurisdiction because petition is untimely and no exception applies | Court found it lacked jurisdiction to address merits and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for those under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Floyd, 431 A.2d 984 (Pa. 1981) (affirming Floyd's conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller does not apply to offenders 18 or older)