Com. v. Pippen, N.
Com. v. Pippen, N. No. 2013 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Appellant Nyako Odell Pippen was convicted in January 2008 of second-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and three counts of robbery; he received a mandatory life sentence plus an aggregate consecutive 10–20 year term.
- Appellant’s direct appeal was reinstated nunc pro tunc; the Superior Court affirmed in 2009 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal the same year.
- Appellant filed an initial PCRA petition that was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed by this Court.
- On March 30, 2016, Appellant filed a second PCRA petition invoking Miller v. Alabama, claiming Miller created a retroactive constitutional right that tolled the PCRA one-year time bar.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, received no response, and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 23, 2016; Appellant appealed and the court applied the prisoner mailbox rule to deem the appeal timely.
Issues
| Issue | Pippen's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant’s second PCRA petition is timely under the PCRA’s time‑bar exception for new constitutional rights (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)) | Miller recognizes a new constitutional rule (ban on mandatory LWOP for juveniles) that should make his petition timely | Miller does not apply because Appellant was 19 at the time of the offense; Miller’s holding applies only to those under 18 and cannot be expanded to him | Court held petition untimely; Miller does not afford relief because Appellant was 19 and he failed to plead a valid timeliness exception |
| Whether the notice of appeal was timely despite docketing delay | Implied: appeal should be considered timely under the prisoner mailbox rule | PCRA court found mailing date controlled; no dispute to overturn | Court accepted PCRA court’s application of the prisoner mailbox rule and did not disturb the finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (held mandatory life-without-parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA petitions may be dismissed without a hearing when timeliness exception is not pleaded or proven)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (cannot expand Miller to other age groups to satisfy PCRA timeliness exception)
- Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 683 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1996) (prisoner mailbox rule: pro se prisoner filings are deemed filed when given to prison authorities for mailing)