Com. v. Rosado, F.
75 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- In 1996 Felix Rosado (then 18) pled guilty to first-degree murder and received life without parole; he filed no direct appeal.
- Rosado filed a PCRA petition on March 22, 2016, seeking relief based on his youth/immaturity at the time of the offense and subsequent rehabilitation.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition on December 15, 2016 as untimely.
- Rosado argued his petition fell within the timeliness exception for newly recognized constitutional rights, citing Miller/Montgomery principles about juveniles and LWOP.
- The Commonwealth and the court treated the petition as facially untimely because Rosado was over 18 at the time of the murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosado's 2016 PCRA petition is timely under §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Rosado: petition is timely because Montgomery made Miller retroactive and the scientific basis applies to marginally over-18 offenders; filed within 60 days of Montgomery | Commonwealth: Miller/Montgomery apply only to those under 18 at offense; Rosado was 18+ so exception does not apply | Court: Petition untimely; §9545(b)(1)(iii) inapplicable because Rosado was over 18; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on youth/rehabilitation claims | Rosado: hearing necessary to develop proof of immaturity at 18 and rehabilitation by age 27 | Commonwealth: no hearing because petition is jurisdictionally time-barred | Court: No hearing required where timeliness exception not established; dismissal without hearing proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory LWOP unconstitutional for those under 18)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller does not apply to offenders older than 18)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (refusing to extend Miller to over‑18 offenders)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA petition may be dismissed without a hearing when timeliness exception not met)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timeliness under the PCRA is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness is jurisdictional for PCRA petitions)