Com. v. Holloway, T.
3628 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- In 1992 Holloway was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of instruments of crime and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeals concluded in 1998.
- Holloway filed multiple PCRA petitions; the instant petition (his fourth) was filed pro se on July 16, 2012.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on October 31, 2016 as untimely.
- Holloway invoked Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, arguing a "new constitutional right" exception to the PCRA time bar and claiming equal protection entitles adults to Miller-type relief.
- The PCRA court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was filed well beyond the one-year filing deadline and Holloway failed to plead a timely statutory exception.
- Holloway also referenced a Brady-related matter in filings, but the certified record did not contain the amended PCRA petition raising that claim, so the claim was deemed waived for appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition is timely | Holloway contends Miller/Montgomery create a new constitutional right tolling the time bar | Commonwealth asserts judgment became final in 1998 and petition filed in 2012 is untimely absent an exception | Petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Miller retroactively applies to adult offenders | Holloway argues equal protection requires Miller relief for adults | Commonwealth contends Miller applies only to juvenile offenders | Miller applies only to those under 18; Holloway (age 27 at offense) is not covered |
| Whether Montgomery renders Miller retroactive for state collateral review | Holloway relies on Montgomery’s retroactivity holding | Commonwealth accepts Montgomery but points to Miller’s age-limited scope | Montgomery’s retroactivity does not extend Miller beyond juveniles; claim fails |
| Whether newly-discovered-evidence / Brady claim preserves timeliness | Holloway attempted to raise Brady/newly discovered evidence in an amendment | Commonwealth notes the certified record lacks the amended petition and the claim was not properly presented | Claim is waived for appeal because the amended petition is not in the record; timeliness not excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Weatherill, 24 A.3d 435 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Rizvi, 166 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2017) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PCRA filing deadline rule)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 911 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definition of when a judgment of sentence is final)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (rejecting extension of Miller to adults)
- Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellant’s duty to ensure record contains necessary documents)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller held retroactive on state collateral review)