Com. v. Jones, G.
Com. v. Jones, G. No. 1180 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- George Jones was convicted by jury in 1977 of robbery and related offenses, sentenced to 30–60 years; direct review concluded in 1980 and the judgment became final in March 1981.
- On March 28, 2016, Jones filed his seventh pro se PCRA petition more than 35 years after his judgment became final; the petition raised claims based on a newly-recognized constitutional right and newly discovered facts.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice stating the petition was untimely, received a pro se response from Jones asserting discovery of two witnesses willing to testify as of March 1, 2016, and dismissed the petition without a hearing on July 11, 2016.
- Jones appealed, arguing the record did not support the court’s factual conclusions and that the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness as a jurisdictional threshold and examined whether Jones invoked either of the PCRA timeliness exceptions: (1) newly recognized constitutional right (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)) and (2) newly discovered facts (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)).
- The court held Jones’s petition was facially untimely and that he failed to plead and prove either exception (Miller/Montgomery inapplicable to his age; insufficient explanation and lack of diligence regarding the newly discovered witnesses), so dismissal without a hearing was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — jurisdictional bar under PCRA §9545(b)(1) | Jones argued his petition falls within exceptions allowing late filing: a newly recognized constitutional rule (applying Miller/Montgomery) and newly discovered witnesses | Commonwealth argued petition is untimely and Jones failed to plead/prove either exception or comply with the 60‑day filing rule | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| §9545(b)(1)(iii) — newly recognized constitutional right | Jones urged Miller/Montgomery principles should extend to him because he was 25 and cites neuroscientific immaturity of brains under 26 | Commonwealth argued Miller applies only to juvenile (under 18) mandatory life sentences; extension beyond juveniles rejected by Pa. precedent | Exception not satisfied; Miller/Montgomery do not apply to Jones; claim fails |
| §9545(b)(1)(ii) — newly discovered facts (witnesses) | Jones claimed two co-defendants escaped and only became willing to testify as of March 1, 2016, providing exculpatory evidence | Commonwealth argued Jones did not explain when/how he learned of witnesses’ willingness, nor show due diligence over 35 years; failed 60‑day filing showing | Exception not satisfied; inadequate explanation and lack of due diligence; claim fails |
| Right to evidentiary hearing | Jones asserted the court erred in dismissing without holding a hearing | Commonwealth maintained no genuine issues of material fact; record insufficient to invoke exceptions so no hearing required | No hearing required; dismissal without hearing proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for denial of PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Crawley, 739 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1999) (pre‑1996 convictions and PCRA grace period limited to first petition)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness as jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (legality claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness and exceptions under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (requirements for newly discovered facts exception and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (refusal to extend Miller beyond juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reaffirming that Miller does not extend to offenders older than 18)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juveniles)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller rule held substantive and retroactive on state collateral review)