Com. v. Maldonado, A.
1756 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- In December 2002 Maldonado (born Feb. 21, 1983) and a co-conspirator robbed occupants of a home; during the struggle a victim was shot and killed.
- Maldonado (age 19 at the time) was convicted after a non-jury trial of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and sentenced Sept. 20, 2004 to life imprisonment without parole for murder plus consecutive terms for robbery.
- Direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review were unsuccessful; judgment of sentence became final October 10, 2006.
- Maldonado filed multiple PCRA petitions: a timely first petition (denied), a second untimely petition (filed July 29, 2015, denied), and the third petition at issue (filed March 2016) asserting his life-without-parole sentence is unconstitutional under Miller and Montgomery.
- The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because the judgment of sentence became final in 2006 and the petition was filed well after the one-year deadline; Maldonado invoked the newly-recognized-right exception based on Montgomery.
- The Superior Court agreed the petition was untimely and rejected Maldonado’s attempt to extend Miller’s protections to offenders 18–19; because Maldonado was 19 at the time of the crime, Miller/Montgomery do not entitle him to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third PCRA petition was timely under § 9545(b) via the newly-recognized-right exception | Maldonado: Montgomery announced a retroactive rule (Miller) and he filed within 60 days of Montgomery, so his untimely petition is saved | Commonwealth: Judgment became final in 2006; petition filed >1 year late and Montgomery/Miller do not apply to persons 18 or older at offense | Petition untimely; exception inapplicable because Miller protects only those under 18 and Maldonado was 19 at offense, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery require extending protection to offenders under 20 | Maldonado: brain-development science and Miller/Montgomery support extension to under-20 offenders | Commonwealth: Miller explicitly limits to under-18; Pennsylvania precedent declines to expand Miller beyond under-18 offenders | Court rejects extension; follows precedent (Cintora, Furgess) limiting Miller to under-18 |
| Whether Montgomery’s retroactivity alters Cintora/Furgess holdings | Maldonado: Montgomery renders Miller retroactive and should affect scope | Commonwealth: Montgomery makes Miller retroactive but does not expand the substantive age scope beyond under-18 | Montgomery makes Miller retroactive but does not broaden Miller’s under-18 rule; prior holdings limiting Miller to <18 remain controlling |
| Whether prisoner mailbox rule made petition timely | Maldonado: Petition placed in prison mail within 60 days of Montgomery | Commonwealth: — (not disputed) | Court accepts mailbox rule; petition deemed filed within 60 days but still fails on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for those under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule given retroactive effect on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller does not apply to offenders 18 or older; Cintora remains controlling on age scope)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller limited to offenders under 18; Miller not to be expanded beyond that age)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and time-for-filing exceptions must meet statutory requirements)