Com. v. King, S.
3491 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- In May 1991 Sheena King, at her boyfriend’s request, shot and killed Shawn Wilder; she later confessed and was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole (LWOP).
- King was 18 at the time of the offense. Direct appeal was affirmed; she pursued two prior PCRA petitions that were denied and affirmed on appeal.
- King filed a third pro se PCRA petition in August 2012 (amended March 2016) challenging her LWOP sentence and invoking recent juvenile-sentencing Eighth Amendment decisions; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition as untimely on October 25, 2016.
- The trial court ruled King’s judgment of sentence became final in September 1999; therefore the 2012 petition was filed well outside the PCRA’s one-year time bar unless an exception applied.
- King argued she fit the PCRA timeliness exception based on new constitutional rules (relying on Roper, Graham, Miller and related rationale) because of her youth-equivalent cognitive functioning and history of abuse; she conceded she was 18 at the time of the crime.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness as jurisdictional and affirmed dismissal, holding King could not invoke the new-rule retroactivity exception because the cited Supreme Court holdings apply only to defendants who were under 18 at the time of the offense or to non-homicide juvenile offenders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (King) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King’s third PCRA petition was timely or met a timeliness exception | King argued a new constitutional right exception applies because Graham/Roper/Miller principles (youth-related cognitive differences and mitigation) should extend to her despite being 18 | The Commonwealth argued the one-year PCRA time bar applies and the cited Supreme Court decisions do not create a new right applicable to an adult convicted of murder | Dismissal affirmed: petition untimely; King did not satisfy a §9545(b)(1) exception |
| Whether Graham/Roper/Miller apply to King’s LWOP sentence | King claimed the rationale underlying those cases (juvenile brain development, mitigation) should apply to her due to comparable cognitive and abuse history | Commonwealth maintained those holdings are limited to defendants under 18 or to non-homicide juvenile offenders and thus do not extend to King | Court held those decisions do not apply because King was 18 and convicted of homicide; their holdings/rationale cannot be transmuted into a new retroactive right for her |
| Whether King satisfied the 60-day filing requirement for a newly recognized constitutional right | King’s petition was filed years after the cited Supreme Court decisions; she implied those precedents supported relief | Commonwealth pointed out the 60-day requirement and that King filed long after those decisions | Court noted even if decisions applied, King failed the 60-day filing requirement under §9545(b)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (holding death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under 18)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (holding LWOP unconstitutional for juvenile non-homicide offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (holding mandatory LWOP for juvenile offenders unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishing case holdings from rationale for PCRA new-rule exception)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller applies only to offenders under 18)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)