Com. v. Palmer, S.
Com. v. Palmer, S. No. 517 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Stephen Palmer was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole on November 2, 2001.
- This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on January 10, 2003; the judgment became final February 10, 2003 (no allowance petition filed).
- Palmer filed multiple prior PCRA petitions; the instant pro se PCRA petition was filed March 18, 2016 (a successive, untimely petition).
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss and ultimately dismissed the petition on January 18, 2017 as untimely; Palmer appealed.
- Palmer argued he satisfied the PCRA timeliness exceptions based on "newly discovered" brain and social science as described in Miller v. Alabama and on Miller/Montgomery retroactivity.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 and affirmed the dismissal, finding Palmer’s petition untimely and that he failed to invoke any exception.
Issues
| Issue | Palmer's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely via an exception; otherwise should be heard | Petition untimely—judgment final Feb 10, 2003; petition filed Mar 18, 2016 | Petition untimely; dismissed under § 9545(b)(1) |
| "Newly discovered facts" exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Miller-related brain/social science are newly discovered facts | Judicial decisions are not "facts"; Watts bars treating opinions as newly discovered facts | Denied—judicial opinions cannot be "newly discovered facts" for § 9545(b)(1)(ii) |
| New constitutional right retroactivity (§ 9545(b)(1)(iii)) (Miller/Montgomery) | Miller/Montgomery create a new right applicable to him because of brain immaturity/diminished capacity | Miller applies only to offenders under 18 at crime; Palmer was 25; Miller/Montgomery inapplicable | Denied—Miller/Montgomery apply only to offenders <18; Palmer not covered |
| Legality-of-sentence review despite time limits | Sentence illegal and thus reviewable regardless of timeliness | Legality-of-sentence claims still subject to PCRA time limits or exceptions | Denied—sentence legality does not circumvent PCRA timeliness requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule given retroactive effect)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (judicial opinions are not "newly discovered facts" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)