Com. v. Pritchard, A.
Com. v. Pritchard, A. No. 1265 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Alphonse J. Pritchard was convicted in 1977 of first-degree murder, PIC, and conspiracy for a 1976 homicide; sentenced in 1978 to mandatory life without parole (LWOP).
- Direct appeals and an earlier PCHA/PCRA petition in the 1980s were unsuccessful; judgment of sentence became final circa 1980.
- Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on August 15, 2012 seeking relief based on Miller v. Alabama (June 2012) and alleging equal protection concerns for adults serving LWOP.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter; the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition on June 2, 2014.
- Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed April 22, 2016; the Superior Court held that a court/system breakdown (mis-mailed dismissal order) excused the late appeal filing and permitted review nunc pro tunc.
- On the merits the PCRA petition was dismissed as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because Miller applies only to juvenile offenders and Pritchard was an adult (age 26) at the time of the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Pritchard: didn’t receive June 2, 2014 dismissal order, so late notice excused | Commonwealth: Rule 903(a) requires 30-day appeal; no extension allowed | Court: Systemic mailing error caused breakdown; appeal deemed timely nunc pro tunc |
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Pritchard: petition filed within 60 days of Miller, invoking § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth: judgment final in 1980; must meet statutory exceptions | Court: Miller claim filed within 60 days of Miller, so § 9545(b)(2) satisfied |
| Applicability of Miller retroactively | Pritchard: Miller (retroactive via Montgomery) should benefit LWOP inmates generally; equal protection requires similar relief | Commonwealth: Miller applies only to offenders <18 at offense; adults not covered | Court: Miller applies only to juveniles; Pritchard (26) not in class; cannot invoke § 9545(b)(1)(iii); PCRA petition time‑barred |
| Equal protection challenge | Pritchard: denying Miller relief to adult LWOP prisoners violates equal protection | Commonwealth: no basis to extend new juvenile rule to adults | Court: Equal protection claim fails; Miller cannot be extended to adult LWOP offenders |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller held to have retroactive effect)
- Khalil v. (Pa. Super.), 806 A.2d 415 (Pa. Super. 2002) (trial-court process breakdown can excuse untimely appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller cannot be extended to offenders over 18)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reaffirming that Miller applies only to juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)