Com. v. Nauss, R.
Com. v. Nauss, R. No. 2947 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- In 1977 Robert T. Nauss (age 19) was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life; Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed in 1981.
- Nauss escaped custody in 1982 and was recaptured in 1990. He filed a first PCRA petition in 1997 which was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- On March 28, 2016 Nauss filed a successive pro se PCRA petition raising (1) newly discovered scientific evidence relating to adolescent brain development (relying on Miller/Montgomery) and (2) a claim that his 1979 sentence was illegal under a repealed/unconstitutional statute.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely on September 19, 2016; Nauss timely appealed.
- The Superior Court held the petition was facially untimely (judgment final in 1982) and that Nauss failed to plead/prove any statutory exception to the one‑year time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nauss) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly disclosed scientific studies (brain‑maturation research tied to Miller/Montgomery) make the 2016 PCRA timely under the "newly discovered facts" exception | Nauss: Neuroscience showing nineteen‑year‑old brain immaturity is a newly discovered fact entitling him to relief | Commonwealth: Miller/Montgomery do not extend to offenders older than 18; argument seeks to expand holdings and does not satisfy timeliness exceptions | Denied — court found the claim is an impermissible extension of Miller/Montgomery and does not satisfy §9545(b)(1)(ii) or the timing rule |
| Whether Nauss’s sentence was illegal under a repealed/unconstitutional statute, permitting PCRA review despite untimeliness | Nauss: Sentence was illegal and therefore reviewable despite PCRA time bar | Commonwealth: Legality-of-sentence claims still must meet PCRA time limits or an exception | Denied — illegality claim does not excuse timeliness; no exception pleaded or proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Nauss, 442 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1981) (affirming original judgment of sentence)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller made retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) ("newly discovered facts" requires facts previously unknown and not discoverable with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (rejecting effort to extend Miller-based relief to offenders older than the class protected by Miller)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA timeliness requirements)