Com. v. Hurdle, M.
Com. v. Hurdle, M. No. 959 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Marlon Hurdle was convicted by a jury in 1995 of two counts of first-degree murder for crimes he committed at age 20 and was sentenced to two consecutive life-without-parole terms.
- Hurdle’s direct appeals were denied; he filed a first PCRA petition in 2011 which was dismissed as untimely and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- On March 23, 2016, Hurdle filed a second PCRA petition claiming Miller-based relief after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery made Miller retroactive.
- The Lancaster County PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely; Hurdle appealed pro se and counsel was later appointed on appeal.
- Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and moved to withdraw, arguing the Miller/Montgomery claim lacked merit because Hurdle was 20 at the time of the offenses.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, concluded the Miller/Montgomery claim fails on the merits for an offender older than 18, affirmed dismissal, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurdle’s PCRA petition is timely under the §9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception | Montgomery made Miller retroactive; Hurdle filed within 60 days of Montgomery, so his petition is timely | PCRA court previously dismissed earlier petition; but defendant did not dispute timeliness once Montgomery issued | Court held petition was timely under the Montgomery retroactivity exception as applied after Secreti |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery entitles Hurdle to relief | Hurdle argued his LWOP sentences are unconstitutional under Miller as made retroactive by Montgomery | Commonwealth argued Miller applies only to juveniles (under 18) and thus does not benefit Hurdle, who was 20 | Court held Miller applies only to those under 18 at the time of the offense; Hurdle (age 20) is not entitled to relief |
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley to withdraw | Hurdle implicitly challenges counsel’s withdrawal by proceeding on appeal; counsel asserted compliance | Commonwealth supported counsel’s procedural compliance | Court found Turner/Finley requirements satisfied (no-merit letter, notice to client) and permitted withdrawal |
| Whether independent review supports no-merit conclusion | Hurdle maintained the constitutional claim merited relief | Counsel argued claim lacked merit for factual age reason; court conducted independent review | Court agreed with counsel that the Miller claim lacked merit and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (U.S. 2016) (held Miller announced a substantive rule that is retroactive)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (held mandatory LWOP unconstitutional for offenders under 18)
- Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applied Montgomery retroactivity and explained timing for Miller claims)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (explains PCRA one-year time bar and 60-day filing exception)