Com. v. Morrison, E.
175 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Ernest L. Morrison pled guilty to first‑degree murder on July 23, 2007, receiving a mandatory life sentence; plea agreement waived appeals and the Commonwealth declined to seek death.
- Morrison later filed a pro se PCRA petition (timely filed July 18, 2008); counsel was appointed and an amended petition was litigated and denied on January 21, 2010; the Superior Court affirmed on February 7, 2011.
- Morrison filed a second PCRA petition pro se on August 23, 2012, asserting diminished capacity, cumulative ineffective assistance, and citing Miller v. Alabama.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on December 11, 2015; Morrison appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court held Morrison’s second petition was untimely (judgment of sentence became final August 22, 2007) and that he failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA one‑year filing deadline.
- Because no timeliness exception was established, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance (including failure to file appeals) entitles Morrison to relief/reinstatement of appellate rights | Morrison argued counsel provided constitutionally deficient performance and failed to preserve/restore appellate rights | Commonwealth/PCRA court maintained claims are procedurally barred as part of an untimely PCRA petition | Denied — court found petition untimely and no exception pleaded, so it lacked jurisdiction to reach ineffectiveness claims |
| Whether petitioner established a timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) (e.g., newly recognized constitutional rule or previously unknown facts) | Morrison relied on diminished capacity, cumulative ineffectiveness, and cited Miller (juvenile sentencing case) | Commonwealth argued petitioner failed to plead or prove any of the three statutory exceptions within 60 days and Miller inapplicable because Morrison was an adult | Denied — petitioner did not establish any statutory exception; Miller was inapplicable and issue was abandoned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Berry, 877 A.2d 479 (Pa. Super. 2005) (PCRA review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (requirements for pleading timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness is jurisdictional for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to hear untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders unconstitutional)