Commonwealth v. Chambers
35 A.3d 34
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Chambers, a juvenile at the time, was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole plus concurrent terms.
- Trial occurred in 2003; Chambers received a mandatory life sentence for murder, with additional 5–10 year terms for conspiracies and robberies.
- Chambers timely filed post-sentence motions; Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal in 2005; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2005.
- Chambers' judgment became final on December 8, 2005.
- Chambers filed a PCRA petition on July 19, 2010, which the court dismissed as untimely, citing lack of timeliness and inapplicability of Graham to homicide.
- Chambers appeals the PCRA denial, arguing Graham creates a retroactive, newly recognized right applicable to his case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Chambers' PCRA petition timely under 9545(b)? | Chambers argues Graham made the right retroactive. | Commonwealth contends Graham does not apply to homicide, and petition untimely. | No; petition untimely, Graham limited to non-homicide juveniles. |
| Does Graham create a new retroactive right for homicide juveniles under 9545(b)(1)(iii)? | Graham rationale should extend to homicide juvenile. | Graham covers non-homicide offenses only; cannot apply to Chambers. | Graham does not create a retroactive right for homicide cases; Ortiz controls. |
| Was Chambers entitled to relief under any other timeliness exception? | Not argued; focus on Graham exception. | No other exception applies; petition remains untimely. | No other applicable exception established; PCRA petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses unconstitutional)
- Smith v. Pennsylvania Board Of Probation and Parole, 546 Pa. 115 (Pa. 1996) (prisoner mailbox rule; remand for timeliness evidence when record incomplete)
- Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule detailed application to timeliness)
- Ortiz, 17 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Graham does not create new right for homicide juvenile cases)
- Abdul-Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (timeliness exception requires newly recognized constitutional right by Supreme Court)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles; rationale precedential to Graham)
- Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness interpretation and retroactivity principles)
- Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timing framework; strict application of timeliness)