Com. v. Robinson, H.
3718 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Hakim Robinson (21 at the time) was convicted in 2002 of second-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and conspiracy for a 2000 robbery in which a juvenile co‑conspirator, Fred Porter, fatally shot the victim. Robinson received life without parole for murder plus additional terms.
- Robinson’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2003; his judgment became final in 2004.
- Robinson filed multiple PCRA petitions: an initial timely petition denied in 2006 (affirmed), a second petition (2012) invoking Miller v. Alabama rejected as untimely, and a third petition (filed 6/5/2015, amended 3/15/2016) invoking Montgomery (2016) and an alleged newly available alibi witness fact.
- The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely; Robinson appealed, arguing the Montgomery decision (and its Miller retroactivity) created either a newly discovered fact or a newly-recognized constitutional right that he invoked within 60 days.
- Robinson’s core contention: Montgomery’s recognition of juveniles’ brain immaturity (and its retroactive application of Miller) should extend relief to him because his juvenile co‑defendant’s status undermines the chain of culpability, warranting application of the PCRA timing exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery/Miller create a §9545(b)(1)(ii) "new fact" that excuses untimeliness | Robinson: Montgomery disclosed "new scientific brain facts" within 60 days, qualifying as a previously unknown fact | Commonwealth: Montgomery/Miller concern juvenile offenders only and do not create a new fact applicable to a 21‑year‑old defendant | Court: No — Montgomery/Miller do not supply a new factual predicate applicable to Robinson; petition untimely |
| Whether Montgomery/Miller announce a newly‑recognized constitutional right under §9545(b)(1)(iii) applicable to Robinson | Robinson: Montgomery retroactively applies Miller and thus announces a right that should extend to similarly situated codefendants | Commonwealth: Miller/Montgomery protect juvenile offenders; court cannot extend that rule to non‑juveniles | Court: No — Miller/Montgomery apply only to juveniles; Robinson (age 21) is outside the class and not entitled to relief |
| Whether equal‑protection principles (relying on Cruz) require extending juvenile relief to non‑juvenile codefendants | Robinson: Cruz supports treating identically situated codefendants the same | Commonwealth: Robinson is not identically situated to juvenile Porter because Miller protects juveniles only | Court: No — Cruz does not require extension where the underlying rule is limited to juveniles |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction notwithstanding the one‑year time bar | Robinson: Timely invoked exceptions within 60 days of Montgomery | Commonwealth: No applicable §9545 exception, so court lacks jurisdiction | Court: No jurisdiction over untimely petition; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller held to have retroactive effect)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 851 A.2d 870 (Pa. 2004) (equal‑treatment principle for identically situated codefendants on purely legal issues)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standards for appellate review of PCRA rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness/jurisdiction principles for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (court may not extend Miller beyond juvenile offenders)