Com. v. Pinckney, T., Com. v. Pinckney, T. No. 3631 EDA 2016

Thomas Pinckney was convicted in 1995 of second-degree murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life imprisonment; his direct appeal was affirmed in 1997 and his judgment became final in January 1998.
Pinckney filed prior PCRA petitions in 1999 and 2003; the 2003 petition was dismissed as untimely and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
In July 2014 Pinckney filed a pro se hybrid PCRA/habeas petition (supplemented in Feb 2016) asserting, among other things, claims based on Commonwealth v. Walker and Miller v. Alabama.
The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 and dismissed the petition as untimely on October 19, 2016; Pinckney appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed whether Pinckney invoked a statutory timeliness exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) or (iii)) to overcome the one‑year PCRA filing deadline and concluded he did not.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / jurisdiction under the PCRA	Pinckney contends his 2014 petition is timely under the exceptions in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (new facts) or (iii) (new constitutional right)	Commonwealth argues the petition is facially untimely (judgment final 1998) and no exception applies	Held: Petition untimely; no jurisdiction because exceptions not established
Walker (eyewitness expert testimony) as newly discovered fact or new right	Walker (2014) altered law on eyewitness expert testimony; Pinckney says it is a new fact/right and he filed within 60 days	Commonwealth: Judicial decisions are not "newly discovered facts," and Walker did not establish a retroactive constitutional right — it rejected a per se ban and left admissibility to trial courts	Held: Walker cannot satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(ii) or (iii); does not render petition timely
Miller v. Alabama (juvenile sentencing) applicability	Pinckney raised Miller claim (life without parole) in supplement	Commonwealth: Miller applies only to those who were juveniles at the time of offense; Pinckney was 19	Held: Miller-based exception would fail because Pinckney was 19 when offenses occurred; claim does not rescue timeliness

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explaining § 9545(b)(1)(ii) elements)
Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (rejected per se ban on eyewitness-expert testimony; admissibility left to trial court)
Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (judicial decisions are not "newly discovered facts" for § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
Commonwealth v. Pinckney, 860 A.2d 1133 (Pa. Super. 2004) (prior appellate disposition of Pinckney's earlier PCRA appeal)