Com. v. Martinez, E.
2304 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Edgar Martinez was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, firearms offenses, and conspiracy on September 22, 1998, and sentenced to life plus additional terms on January 21, 1999.
- His direct appeal was affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance; the judgment became final on July 15, 2001 (90 days after denial of review to seek certiorari).
- Martinez filed a first PCRA petition in 2002 which was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed in 2003.
- He filed a second PCRA petition on May 21, 2012, raising, among other things, claims invoking Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana and arguing those decisions applied retroactively to him because he was 18 at the time of the offense and relied on developmental neuroscience.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice finding the petition untimely because Miller/Montgomery apply only to offenders under 18 sentenced to life without parole and Martinez admitted he was over 18; the court dismissed the petition on June 24, 2016.
- Martinez appealed pro se, arguing the PCRA time-bar exception for newly recognized constitutional rights applied and that dismissal without an evidentiary hearing or counsel denied due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez’s second PCRA petition is timely under the PCRA’s "after-recognized constitutional right" exception | Miller/Montgomery recognized a constitutional rule making mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; Martinez argues he is covered because he was 18 and brain development supports extending the rule | Miller/Montgomery are limited to offenders under 18 and do not apply to Martinez, who was over 18; therefore the PCRA time-bar exception does not apply | Petition is untimely; Miller/Montgomery do not apply to those who were 18 or older at the time of the offense, so § 9545(b)(1)(iii) not satisfied |
| Whether Martinez’s petition could rely on newly discovered facts (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) to overcome the time bar | Neuroscientific studies about brain development are newly discovered facts that undermine the age cutoff and support equitable application | The cited studies do not transform Miller into a rule applicable to those older than 18; prior Pennsylvania case law rejects the ‘‘technical juvenile’’ expansion | The court rejected the newly-discovered-facts argument as insufficient to invoke the PCRA time-bar exception |
| Whether dismissal without an evidentiary hearing and without counsel denied due process | Martinez contends disputed factual issues about timeliness required a hearing and appointment of counsel | Courts lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of an untimely petition; no statutory exception established, so no entitlement to a hearing or counsel on the merits | No due process violation: court properly dismissed as untimely and had no jurisdiction to hold an evidentiary hearing or appoint counsel |
| Whether PCRA time limits are subject to equitable tolling | Martinez implies equitable considerations should allow his late filing | Pennsylvania law treats PCRA time limits as jurisdictional; only statutory exceptions can extend filing time | Time limits are jurisdictional; equitable tolling does not apply; only statutory exceptions control |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (Miller rule held retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards for plea negotiations)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (reaffirming jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA exceptions are exclusive means to extend filing time)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review in PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (court cannot ignore untimeliness to reach merits)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller does not extend to those older than 18)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (rejecting "technical juvenile" argument and reaffirming Cintora)