Commonwealth v. Cintora
69 A.3d 759
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellants Oscar and Jesus challenged the dismissal of their PCRA petitions as untimely.
- They pled guilty in 1994–1995 for a home invasion and murder; Jesus received life plus concurrent terms; Oscar received life with additional concurrent sentences.
- Neither filed direct appeals.
- They filed identical August 10, 2012 PCRA petitions invoking Miller v. Alabama as a new constitutional right and time-bar exception.
- PCRA court ruled Miller inapplicable and dismissed for untimeliness after notices under Rule 907; petitions were subsequently deemed untimely and lacked valid exceptions.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, holding the petitions untimely and not saved by any listed exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA petitions were timely or untimely despite exceptions | Cintora argues exceptions (b)(1)(ii)-(iii) apply | Commonwealth argues no timely filing and no applicable exception | Untimely; no applicable exception established |
| Whether Miller creates a newly recognized right extending relief to them | Miller applies to new constitutional right for juveniles | Miller does not apply to Appellants due to ages at offense | Miller does not render petitions timely or retroactive relief |
| Whether Miller-derived arguments support equal protection relief | Brains maturation claim should extend Miller to some adults | Miller not applicable to extend relief beyond juveniles | Not timely or cognizable under PCRA; equal protection argument fails on timeliness |
| Whether the 60-day requirement of 9545(b)(2) was satisfied | Petitions filed within 60 days of Miller decision | Miller decision date triggered 60-day clock; petitions untimely | Untimely under 9545(b)(2) as Miller was filed June 25, 2012 and petitions September 10, 2012 |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, ? A.3d ? (Pa. (2007)) (defined 9545(b)(1)(h) as two-part inquiry about unknown facts and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. (2011)) (judicial opinions are not newly discovered facts triggering 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. Ct. (2012)) (60-day rule begins from underlying decision date for 9545(b)(2))
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. (2000)) (time limits are mandatory and jurisdictional)