Com. v. McGinnis, V.
Com. v. McGinnis v. No. 979 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Appellant Vernon Earl McGinnis committed crimes including first-degree murder at age 18.
- McGinnis had a lengthy PCRA history; his eighth PCRA petition was dismissed by this Court on January 29, 2016.
- On February 11, 2016 McGinnis filed a pro se petition for reargument of the eighth-PCR A dismissal; that reargument was pending when he filed a ninth PCRA petition (docketed March 22, 2016).
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on May 12, 2016, and dismissed the ninth PCRA petition as untimely on June 8, 2016; McGinnis appealed.
- The Superior Court held that under Commonwealth v. Lark a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed while an earlier PCRA appeal remains pending, so the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the ninth petition; the Court vacated the dismissal order and quashed the appeal.
- The Court also noted Miller v. Alabama does not apply because McGinnis was 18 at the time of the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subsequent PCRA petition filed while an earlier PCRA appeal is pending is properly filed and timely | McGinnis proceeded with ninth PCRA while his reargument was pending and sought relief | Commonwealth maintained the subsequent petition is untimely and procedurally improper while prior appeal pending | Under Lark, a subsequent petition filed while an earlier PCRA appeal is pending is premature; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; appeal quashed |
| Whether Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery entitle McGinnis to relief | McGinnis relied on Miller/Montgomery to challenge life-without-parole sentencing for juvenile offenders | Commonwealth implicitly argued Miller inapplicable because appellant was not a juvenile under Miller | Court observed Miller applies only to offenders under 18; McGinnis was 18, so Miller does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for those under 18 unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced substantive rule applicable retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed while prior PCRA appeal is pending; petitionable period begins after final resolution)