Com. v. Margretta, S.
Com. v. Margretta, S. No. 2451 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 19, 2017Background
- Steven Margretta pled guilty to homicide and received a life sentence on February 21, 1996; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Margretta filed multiple post-conviction petitions (PCRA): first in 2002 (denied as untimely), second in 2007 (dismissed), third in 2012 (dismissed), and the instant fourth petition in March 2016.
- The 2016 petition invoked Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, arguing an after-recognized constitutional right excused the PCRA time bar.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, concluded Miller applies only to juvenile offenders and Margretta was an adult (age 21) at the time of the offense, and dismissed the petition as untimely on July 6, 2016.
- Margretta appealed pro se but failed to file the court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement; the Superior Court deemed his issues waived and alternatively held the petition was untimely because Miller/Montgomery did not apply to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 PCRA petition is timely | Margretta contends Miller/Montgomery creates an after-recognized constitutional right that excuses the time bar | Commonwealth argues petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final and no exception applies | Held untimely; judgment final in 2004, 2016 petition filed >1 year later and exceptions not met |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery applies to an adult (age 21) offender | Margretta seeks relief under Miller/Montgomery despite being 21 at offense | Commonwealth asserts Miller applies only to juvenile offenders (those under 18) | Held Miller/Montgomery inapplicable because Margretta was not a juvenile |
| Whether appellant’s failure to file Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement forfeits appellate review | Margretta did not file the court-ordered concise statement after extension was granted | Commonwealth relies on Rule 1925 waiver doctrine to bar appellate review | Held issues waived for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) |
| Whether to extend Miller protection to offenders under 25 based on brain development | Margretta argues a broader scientific basis (brain maturation to 25) should extend Miller relief | Commonwealth cites precedent rejecting extension beyond juvenile status | Held rejected; Superior Court precedent refuses to treat >18 as "technical juvenile" |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Margretta, 830 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prior PCRA appeal affirming dismissal as untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement waives issues)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) compliance required to preserve issues)
- Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (pro se litigants must comply with appellate rules; appeals may be dismissed for noncompliance)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness 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 announced a substantive rule of constitutional law made retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (declining to extend Miller relief to a 19-year-old as a "technical juvenile")