Com. v. Townsend, T.
Com. v. Townsend, T. No. 1515 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Townsend was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and conspiracy for directing co-defendants to shoot Jimmy Ortiz and acting as a lookout; he received life without parole.
- Pennsylvania Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously affirmed/denied direct review; no U.S. Supreme Court review was sought.
- This appeal arises from Townsend's third PCRA petition, which he concedes is untimely.
- Townsend invoked PCRA timeliness exceptions based on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana claiming his life-without-parole sentence is unconstitutional.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition; the Superior Court affirmed, finding Townsend's claims do not invoke a statutory timeliness exception and Miller does not apply because Townsend was over 18 at the time of the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely PCRA petition can proceed under newly-discovered-facts exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Miller/Montgomery are new legal developments that support relief; thus facts supporting constitutional invalidity are newly discovered | Decisional law is not a "fact"; Miller/Montgomery are legal developments, not facts | Denied — decisional law is not a "fact" under §9545(b)(1)(ii) |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery create a newly-recognized constitutional right that makes the petition timely (§9545(b)(1)(iii)) | Miller/Montgomery announce a new substantive rule and Montgomery makes it retroactive; petition therefore timely | Even if retroactive, the rule applies only to juvenile offenders under 18; Townsend was over 18 so rule does not help him | Denied — Miller/Montgomery do not apply to crimes committed by adults over 18 |
| Whether developmental neuroscience (brain development) extends Miller to adults | Townsend contends brain development arguments should extend juvenile protections to him | Commonwealth and precedent reject extending Miller beyond juveniles; extension is not recognized by PA or U.S. Supreme Court | Denied — courts decline to expand Miller to adult offenders; prior Superior Court precedent rejects this argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (petitioner must show facts were unknown and due diligence could not have discovered them for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (decisional law does not constitute a "fact" under §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (newly-recognized constitutional right exception cannot be used to expand rights beyond those courts have expressly recognized)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness jurisdiction and 60-day filing rule for exceptions)