Com. v. Lambert, R.
1458 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Raymond J. Lambert was convicted by jury of, inter alia, first‑degree murder and sentenced on May 7, 2010 to life without parole. He was 18 at the time of the offense.
- Lambert did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final on June 7, 2010.
- Lambert filed a PCRA petition on March 28, 2016 — about six years after his judgment became final — challenging the life‑without‑parole sentence.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel but dismissed the petition as facially untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
- Lambert argued his petition was saved from the timeliness bar by Miller and Montgomery (and alternatively urged Miller should apply because his brain was not fully developed).
- The PCRA court rejected timeliness and substantive application of Miller; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Lambert (aged 18 at the crime) cannot invoke Miller and therefore did not satisfy any timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lambert) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition is timely or saved by a retroactive rule | Lambert: Miller/Montgomery create a new substantive rule that makes his petition timely under §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth: Petition is facially untimely; Miller/Montgomery do not make it timely because Miller does not apply to 18‑year‑olds | Held: Petition untimely; no jurisdiction because Lambert cannot rely on Miller/Montgomery to satisfy timeliness exception |
| Whether Miller applies to defendants who were 18 at the time of the offense | Lambert: Miller’s Eighth Amendment rule (youthful brain development) should apply | Commonwealth: Miller applies only to those under 18 at the time of the crime; 18+ are not covered | Held: Miller does not apply to persons age 18 or older; Lambert (18) has no Miller claim |
| Whether Montgomery’s retroactivity saves Lambert’s petition even if Miller does not apply | Lambert: Montgomery’s retroactivity means Miller-based claims can be raised on collateral review | Commonwealth: Montgomery’s retroactivity is irrelevant where Miller does not apply on the merits to the petitioner | Held: Montgomery does not help because Miller provides no substantive relief to Lambert |
| Whether Miller should be extended based on neuroscience of brain maturation up to age 25 | Lambert: Brain development research supports extending Miller to older youths | Commonwealth: Extension of a newly recognized right to others does not satisfy §9545(b)(1)(iii) timeliness exception | Held: Court rejects extension argument; prior precedent (Cintora) bars such expansion for timeliness purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of appellate review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Chester v. Fonseca, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; untimely petitions cannot be addressed on the merits)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (holding mandatory life without parole for those under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding Miller does not apply to defendants 18 or older at the time of their crimes)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (refusing to extend Miller‑type protection to older defendants based on generalized brain‑development claims)