Com. v. Page, A.
Com. v. Page, A. No. 2356 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- In 1986 a jury convicted Anthony H. Page of, among other offenses, second-degree murder committed when he was 20; he was sentenced to life on August 26, 1987.
- Page filed multiple prior PCRA petitions; two were denied and a third seeking relief under Miller v. Alabama was dismissed (no appeal taken from that dismissal).
- On May 26, 2016 (motion dated March 20, 2016), Page filed what the PCRA court treated as his fourth PCRA petition, invoking Montgomery v. Louisiana decided January 25, 2016, and asserting timeliness under the 60-day window in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on June 23, 2016; Page appealed pro se.
- The PCRA court and this Court concluded Miller/Montgomery did not render Page’s petition timely because he was older than 18 at the time of the offense; thus the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactivity exception did not apply.
- The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, holding the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain untimely PCRA petitions and that Miller/Montgomery do not benefit defendants who were adults at the time of their crimes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller/Montgomery excuse an otherwise untimely PCRA petition under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Page: Miller and Montgomery created a new constitutional rule; he filed within 60 days of Montgomery, so the retroactivity exception applies | Commonwealth: Page was 20 at offense; Miller/Montgomery apply only to juvenile offenders, so the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception is inapplicable | Held: Petition untimely; Miller/Montgomery do not apply because Page was over 18 when offense occurred, so PCRA dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA one-year filing rule and 60-day requirement for statutory exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal; timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and may be addressed sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller does not apply to offenders older than 18; such petitioners cannot invoke § 9545(b)(1)(iii))