Com. v. Ludwig, D.
1075 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- David G. Ludwig (then ~18½) pled guilty in 2006 to two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses and received two consecutive life terms plus an additional 9.5–19 year term; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Ludwig filed a first pro se PCRA petition in 2012; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter, the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied relief.
- Ludwig filed a second pro se PCRA petition in March 2016; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on May 19, 2016.
- Ludwig mailed a notice of appeal dated June 16, 2016 to this Court; the trial court docket shows filing on June 27, 2016, but this Court treated the appeal as plausibly timely under the prisoner-mailbox rule.
- The PCRA court concluded Ludwig’s second petition did not fall within any statutory exceptions to the one-year PCRA time bar; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Ludwig argued his second PCRA petition was timely because new constitutional rules (Miller/Montgomery) or other exceptions applied. | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the petition was filed well beyond the one-year jurisdictional limit and Ludwig failed to plead a cognizable §9545(b) exception. | Petition was untimely and court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
| Timeliness of notice of appeal | Ludwig’s certificate of service dated June 16, 2016 indicates he mailed the notice within 30 days. | Trial court docket showed filing June 27, 2016; but Commonwealth did not challenge timeliness. | Under the prisoner-mailbox rule and Cooper/Jones precedents, appellate court found plausible timeliness and exercised jurisdiction over the appeal. |
| Applicability/retroactivity of Miller/Montgomery (juvenile sentencing) | Ludwig claimed he was effectively a juvenile and that Miller/Montgomery should apply to his life sentence, creating an exception to the PCRA time bar. | Commonwealth/PCRA court found no timely pleading of a retroactive decision that would satisfy §9545(b)(1)(iii) as to Ludwig’s circumstances. | Court did not find the petition pleaded a proper retroactivity exception; timeliness bar stands. |
| Ineffective assistance / diminished capacity claim | Ludwig alleged trial counsel failed to present available scientific evidence showing diminished capacity, violating Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. | Commonwealth treated claims as untimely and not properly pled under PCRA exceptions; substantive merits were not reached due to time bar. | Claims dismissed as untimely; court did not reach merits of ineffective-assistance allegations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedure for counsel filing no-merit letter in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (no-merit appellate procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner-mailbox rule for filing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76 (Pa. Super. 1998) (treating unchallenged, plausible prison mailing dates as timely)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness analysis under mailbox rule)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller held to have retroactive application)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by jury)