Com. v. Linton, L.
Com. v. Linton, L. No. 1747 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- London Linton pleaded guilty in 1992 to first-degree murder and PIC; sentenced to life without parole for murder and concurrent 2½–5 years for PIC.
- His conviction became final in 1994 after the Superior Court affirmed; Linton did not seek further direct review.
- Linton filed prior post-conviction petitions (first in 1999/2000, dismissed; a second filed in 2012, dismissed in 2015). His third PCRA petition was filed August 20, 2015.
- In the 2015 petition Linton argued his mandatory life-without-parole sentence violated the Equal Protection Clause, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year PCRA filing rule; Linton failed to invoke any statutory timeliness exception.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was patently untimely and Obergefell did not create a new constitutional right or newly discovered fact applicable to Linton’s sentencing claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court erred by dismissing petition without a hearing because sentence is illegal under Equal Protection | Linton: Obergefell’s broad reading of the 14th Amendment renders his mandatory life-without-parole sentence unconstitutional; petition filed within 60 days of Obergefell | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Petition is untimely (conviction final 1994); Obergefell does not create a new right or after-discovered fact applicable to sentencing | Petition dismissed as untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; Obergefell inapplicable |
| Whether PCRA court misstated facts or erred in its order/opinion | Linton: court made factual errors and misstatements supporting dismissal | Commonwealth: dismissal grounded on procedural timeliness and absence of any applicable statutory exception | Superior Court affirmed PCRA court; any minor citation/date errors did not alter correctness of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; courts may raise timeliness sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (untimely PCRA petitions bar court from addressing merits)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex couples’ right to marry under Due Process and Equal Protection)