Com. v. Fraticelli, J.
Com. v. Fraticelli, J. No. 1997 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- In 1995 a jury convicted Jorge Fraticelli of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and carrying a firearm without a license; he received life imprisonment for murder (concurrent shorter terms for other convictions).
- The Superior Court affirmed in 1997 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 1998; Fraticelli filed multiple unsuccessful post-conviction petitions thereafter.
- On February 25, 2016 Fraticelli filed a PCRA petition relying on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana to challenge his mandatory life-without-parole sentence as a juvenile-related Eighth Amendment violation.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 25, 2016; Fraticelli appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Miller/Montgomery created a retroactively applicable constitutional right under the PCRA time‑bar exception and whether Fraticelli satisfied the 60‑day filing requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller/Montgomery creates a new constitutional right making the PCRA petition timely under 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Fraticelli: Miller/Montgomery recognized a constitutional right against mandatory LWOP for juveniles and applies retroactively, so his petition is timely | Commonwealth: Miller applies only to those under 18 at the time of the offense; Fraticelli was 18, so Miller does not help him and his PCRA is untimely | Held: Miller applies only to offenders under 18; because Fraticelli was 18, the new‑right exception does not apply and the petition is untimely |
| Whether Miller should be extended to persons age 18 based on statutory definitions or equal protection | Fraticelli: State definitions of "minor/child" or equal protection/brain development arguments support extending Miller to 18‑year‑olds | Commonwealth: Miller is a judicial Eighth Amendment ruling limited to under‑18s; policy or statutory definitions do not expand its scope | Held: Court declined to extend Miller to those who were 18 at the time of the offense |
| Whether the PCRA court abused discretion in dismissing without a hearing under Rule 907 | Fraticelli: (implicit) merits justify relief and a hearing | Commonwealth: Petition facially untimely and no exception pleaded; no hearing required | Held: No error—dismissal as untimely was proper |
| Whether Fraticelli satisfied the 60‑day filing requirement for the time‑bar exception | Fraticelli: Filed within 60 days of Montgomery/Miller | Commonwealth: Petition still not within §9545(b)(1)(iii) because Miller is inapplicable to him | Held: Not reached substantively because the underlying exception did not apply to an 18‑year‑old |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively on state collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller does not apply to defendants 18 or older at the time of the offense)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reaffirming Cintora that Miller’s protection is limited to under‑18 offenders)