Com. v. Lawrence, F.
62 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- In 1978, Fitzgerald Lawrence (then 20) participated in a shooting that killed Lamont Faison; he was convicted after a non-jury trial of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and PIC, and sentenced to life in 1979; conviction affirmed in 1982.
- Lawrence did not seek certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and pursued multiple prior PCRA and predecessor petitions, all unsuccessful.
- On August 9, 2012, Lawrence filed the PCRA petition at issue; he later filed several pro se papers purporting to amend that petition without obtaining court leave.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on April 20, 2016, and dismissed the petition on December 20, 2016 as untimely. Lawrence timely appealed.
- Lawrence relied on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery to argue his petition fit the 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception for newly recognized constitutional rights applied retroactively, but he was 20 at the time of the offense.
- The PCRA court dismissed without a hearing because the petition was facially untimely and did not plead facts satisfying a statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lawrence's 2012 PCRA petition was timely under § 9545 | Lawrence argued Miller/Montgomery announced a new, retroactive substantive rule bringing him within § 9545(b)(1)(iii) because petition filed within 60 days of Miller-related decisions | Commonwealth argued petition was facially untimely; Miller applies only to offenders under 18, and Lawrence was 20 at offense | Court held petition untimely; Miller-based exception inapplicable because Lawrence was over 18, so dismissal without hearing proper |
| Whether pro se later filings amended the 2012 petition | Lawrence treated later filings as amendments to cure/toll timeliness | Commonwealth argued amendments required court leave and the later filings had no legal effect | Court noted that without leave the attempted amendments were ineffective under Pa.R.Crim.P. 905 and Baumhammers |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 442 A.2d 234 (Pa. 1982) (affirming original conviction and sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (PCRA court lacks power to address untimely petitions not fitting an exception)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller inapplicable to offenders 18 or older)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a retroactive substantive rule)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (affirming dismissal without hearing where petitioner failed to establish timeliness exception)