Com. v. Griffin, M
Com. v. Griffin, M No. 2366 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 29, 2017Background
- Mario L. Griffin was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and simple assault for brutally stabbing and beating his step‑mother and assaulting another intervenor; he was sentenced to 16–42 years on July 25, 2005.
- Direct appeal affirmed the judgment on April 13, 2006; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on January 9, 2007, making the judgment final on April 9, 2007 (after the 90‑day period to seek U.S. Supreme Court review).
- Griffin filed a timely first pro se PCRA petition in 2008, which was dismissed after counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; the dismissal was affirmed on appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review in 2009.
- On April 1, 2016, Griffin filed a second pro se PCRA petition raising defects in the criminal information and alleged jurisdictional and evidentiary errors; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on June 21, 2016 as untimely.
- Griffin appealed; the Superior Court treated waiver arguments carefully (because the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order omitted the required waiver warning) but held it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits because the petition was untimely and Griffin failed to invoke any statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Griffin) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Petition filed April 1, 2016; challenges to indictment/jurisdiction render sentence void and thus reviewable | Judgment of sentence became final April 9, 2007; petition is facially untimely and Griffin did not plead a §9545(b) exception | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Applicability of PCRA exceptions (new constitutional right or newly discovered facts) | Claims effectively challenge legality of sentence and jurisdiction, implying an exception should apply | Griffin did not identify which §9545(b)(1) exception applied or file within 60 days of discovering any new claim | No exception proved; exceptions not satisfied and not timely invoked |
| Waiver based on failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement | Griffin failed to file a 1925(b) statement after extension | Court’s initial order did not include the required Rule 1925(b) waiver warning | Court declined to deem issues waived because the 1925(b) order was deficient |
| Specific federal cases invoked (Alleyne, Miller/Montgomery) | Griffin invoked Alleyne and Miller to challenge sentence legality | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; Miller (and Montgomery) apply only to juvenile life‑without‑parole sentences, which do not fit Griffin’s facts | These federal decisions do not rescue timeliness; claims would not meet exceptions even if raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality‑of‑sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (judgment of sentence becomes final 90 days after state supreme court denial of allowance to appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller rule applied retroactively to collateral review for juvenile LWOP cases)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (a deficient Rule 1925(b) order precludes finding waiver)