Com. v. Hardy, C.
Com. v. Hardy, C. No. 321 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Colton Matthew Hardy pled nolo contendere to first-degree murder on December 2, 2011, and was sentenced to life without parole; he did not file a direct appeal.
- On October 20, 2016, Hardy filed a pro se PCRA petition asserting entitlement to relief under Miller/Montgomery as newly recognized, retroactive constitutional law.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel, held an evidentiary hearing, and dismissed the petition as untimely on January 25, 2017; Hardy appealed.
- Appellate (Turner/Finley) counsel filed a no-merit letter and sought permission to withdraw; the Superior Court granted leave to file a pro se response but Hardy did not respond.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Hardy’s petition met the PCRA timeliness exception for new, retroactive constitutional rules and whether Montgomery/Miller applied to Hardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hardy’s PCRA petition is timely under the PCRA’s newly recognized-right exception | Hardy argued Montgomery made Miller retroactive, qualifying his claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth argued petition was untimely and Miller/Montgomery did not apply because Hardy was 19 at the time of the offense and petition was filed more than 60 days after Montgomery | Court held petition untimely: petitioner filed over four years after judgment became final and not within 60 days of Montgomery; Miller/Montgomery inapplicable because petitioner was not a juvenile |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (held Miller’s rule applies retroactively)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; one-year filing rule)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (procedural requirements for Turner/Finley withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller does not apply to offenders older than 18)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (petitioners older than 18 cannot rely on Miller to overcome PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (counsel’s obligations when seeking to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for no-merit letters)