Com. v. Machicote, A., 122 A.3d 1144

In 2003, 17-year-old Anthony Machicote and an accomplice assaulted a night supervisor during an escape from a juvenile facility; the supervisor suffocated and Machicote later pled guilty to second-degree murder in 2004.
Machicote was sentenced to life imprisonment on January 6, 2005, and did not file a direct appeal.
He filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2006 (denied and affirmed on appeal).
In August 2012 Machicote filed a second PCRA petition seeking relief under Miller v. Alabama; the PCRA court granted relief in September 2013 and he was resentenced in June 2014 to life with parole eligibility at age 58.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court determined the second PCRA petition was untimely, Miller does not apply retroactively under Pennsylvania precedent, and the PCRA court therefore lacked jurisdiction. The court vacated the 2014 sentence and the PCRA order and remanded to reinstate the original 2005 judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court could resentence Machicote to life with parole based on post-2005 law (Miller)	Commonwealth: Resentencing exceeded authority because Miller is not a retroactive basis to reopen final sentences	Machicote: Miller created a new constitutional rule applicable to juvenile lifers, so resentencing was required	Court: Resentencing unlawful because the PCRA petition invoking Miller was untimely and Miller is not retroactive under Cunningham
Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to grant relief on the untimely second petition	Commonwealth: The PCRA court lacked jurisdiction because the petition was filed after the one-year time bar and no timeliness exception was established	Machicote: Relied on the Miller decision as a timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)	Court: Petition was filed more than one year after final judgment and Miller does not qualify as a retroactive exception under Pennsylvania law, so PCRA court lacked jurisdiction
Whether Miller constitutes a statutory exception to the PCRA time-bar in Pennsylvania	Commonwealth: Miller does not apply retroactively per Commonwealth v. Cunningham	Machicote: Miller announced a constitutional right applicable to juvenile offenders that should permit relief	Court: Followed Cunningham — Miller is not retroactive for those whose direct appeals are exhausted; does not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii)

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)
Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Miller not retroactive on PCRA review)
Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA one-year filing requirement is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence review under PCRA still subject to timeliness rules)
Commonwealth v. Borrero, 692 A.2d 158 (Pa. Super. 1997) (parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement or silence)
Commonwealth v. Schmotzer, 831 A.2d 689 (Pa. Super. 2003) (judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void)