Com. v. Frederick, S.
1187 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- In 1977 a jury convicted Steven Dennis Frederick of first-degree murder and related offenses; he was sentenced in 1980 to life without parole.
- Frederick’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final in July 1983 after the certiorari period expired.
- Frederick filed a counseled PCRA petition in 1988; it was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal and by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the early 1990s.
- On March 16, 2016 Frederick (pro se) filed a second PCRA petition invoking Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) and claiming his sentence was void because the sentencing statute allegedly lacked authority.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, received a response, and dismissed the petition as untimely on July 7, 2016; Frederick appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding Frederick’s petition was facially untimely and Montgomery did not make his claim timely or otherwise apply to an adult defendant’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Frederick) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely under a statutory exception | Montgomery recognized a new constitutional rule that renders his sentence void; petition filed within 60 days of Montgomery | Frederick’s judgment was final in 1983; Montgomery/Miller apply to juvenile LWOP cases only and do not create a new right for adults | Petition untimely; Montgomery does not apply to Frederick; no exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) established |
| Whether Montgomery (retroactivity holding for Miller) applies beyond juvenile offenders | Montgomery’s retroactivity principle requires relief for any sentence unauthorized by law | Montgomery applies only to Miller’s juvenile-LWOP context; Frederick was an adult | Montgomery inapplicable; claim fails |
| Whether challenge to legality of sentence circumvents PCRA timeliness rules | Illegal-sentence claim should be reviewed regardless of time bar | Fahy requires even legality-of-sentence claims to meet PCRA time limits or an exception | Timeliness requirements apply; claim does not evade PCRA bar |
| Whether the PCRA court abused discretion by dismissing without a hearing | Filing timely after Montgomery justified relief and an evidentiary hearing | Petition was facially untimely and no pleading of a viable exception; no jurisdiction for hearing | No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court held Miller’s rule is retroactive on collateral review)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile homicide offenders)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims must still satisfy PCRA time limits or an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive the court of jurisdiction)