Com. v. Newell, N.
823 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Nicole Newell was convicted of first-degree murder in 1997 and sentenced to mandatory life without parole; direct appeals were unsuccessful.
- Newell filed multiple pro se PCRA petitions: first in 2000, second in 2005, and the petition at issue in 2010 with later amendments.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice in August 2016 and dismissed Newell’s 2010 petition as untimely on February 15, 2017.
- Newell sought to invoke the PCRA timeliness exception based on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, arguing those decisions (and neuroscientific grounds) entitle her to relief.
- She was 18 at the time of the offense; Miller applies only to offenders under 18.
- The Superior Court held prior Pennsylvania precedents (Cintora and Furgess) preclude extending Miller to defendants older than 18 and affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Newell) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 2010 PCRA petition | Petition is timely under the Miller/Montgomery retroactivity exception | Petition filed long after judgment; must meet PCRA timeliness exceptions | Dismissed as untimely; jurisdiction lacking absent a valid exception |
| Applicability of Miller to an 18‑year‑old | Miller’s rationale about adolescent brain development should extend to ages up to 25; thus Miller relief applies | Miller expressly limits relief to those under 18; cannot be extended by petitioner | Miller does not apply to someone who was 18; relief denied |
| Reliance on Montgomery retroactivity | Montgomery makes Miller retroactive, so timely amendments after those decisions satisfy 60‑day filing rule | Even if Montgomery is retroactive, Miller’s age restriction controls scope | Montgomery’s retroactivity does not broaden Miller to include those >18; exception not met |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Counsel was ineffective (raised in petition) and merits review | Court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits because petition is time‑barred | Court did not reach ineffectiveness claims due to untimeliness; claims not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory LWOP for offenders under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (holding Miller applies retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (rejecting extension of Miller to offenders older than 18)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reaffirming Cintora post‑Montgomery)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (discussing developmental differences between juveniles and adults in Eighth Amendment context)