Com. v. Hiller, C.
3274 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Charles Hiller, born Sept. 22, 1971, fatally shot a victim on July 13, 1990 when he was 18; convicted of first‑degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life plus a consecutive term.
- Direct appeal and allowance of appeal were denied in the 1990s; two prior PCRA petitions failed.
- Hiller filed a third PCRA petition pro se on Aug. 21, 2012, more than 17 years after his judgment became final.
- He argued he was entitled to relief under Miller v. Alabama (and Montgomery v. Louisiana) because adolescent brain development allegedly made his life‑without‑parole sentence unconstitutional.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as facially untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because Hiller did not plead or prove any statutory exception to the one‑year time bar.
- Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed: Hiller sought an extension of Miller to those 18 or older, but Miller applies only to offenders under 18 and Hiller failed to satisfy any PCRA timing exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hiller) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hiller’s third PCRA petition is timely or fits a statutory exception | Miller/Montgomery and neuroscience showing brain immaturity at 18 entitle Hiller to relief and an evidentiary hearing | Petition is facially untimely (filed >1 year after finality); Hiller did not plead/prove any § 9545(b)(1) exception; Miller applies only to <18 | Petition dismissed as untimely; no statutory exception established; no extension of Miller to those 18+ |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (death penalty unconstitutional for offenders under 18; endorses categorical line at 18)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (PCRA timeliness and statutory exceptions; no ad hoc equitable exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (refusal to extend Miller‑type protections to offenders 18 or older for timeliness exception purposes)