Com. v. Liciaga, H.
Com. v. Liciaga, H. No. 1529 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Appellant Harry Leo Liciaga was convicted and sentenced; judgment became final on September 14, 1996.
- Appellant was 18 years old at the time of the underlying crimes.
- On April 1, 2016 — over 20 years after finality — Appellant filed what the court treated as his third PCRA petition challenging the legality of his sentence.
- Appellant relied on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana to evade the PCRA one-year time bar.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely; Appellant appealed that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2016 filing timely under the PCRA? | Liciaga argues Miller/Montgomery create an exception making his petition timely. | Commonwealth contends the petition is facially untimely and Miller does not apply. | Petition is untimely; no jurisdiction to reach merits. |
| Does Miller apply to offenders who were 18 at the time of the crimes? | Liciaga claims Miller should apply because adolescent brain development can extend beyond 18. | Commonwealth says Miller covers only defendants under 18; 18+ offenders not entitled to relief. | Miller does not apply to those 18 or older at offense; claim fails. |
| Does Montgomery make Miller retroactive for state collateral review here? | Liciaga argues Montgomery's retroactivity saves his untimely petition. | Commonwealth argues Montgomery is irrelevant because Miller does not apply to him. | Even if Montgomery were retroactive, Miller is inapplicable to an 18-year-old offender, so it provides no relief. |
| Can developmental immaturity theory extend Miller to offenders under 25? | Liciaga contends brain immaturity arguments warrant extending Miller to him. | Commonwealth relies on precedent rejecting extension beyond Miller’s under-18 rule. | Court rejects extension; prior decisions deny timeliness exception for such expansions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal conclusions)
- Chester v. Court of Common Pleas, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Stokes v. Commonwealth, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness distinct from merits)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Fahy v. Horn, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time-bar principles)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) (holding: mandatory LWOP for those under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (refusing to extend Miller to older offenders based on brain-development arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reiterating Miller does not apply to offenders 18 or older)