189 A.3d 486
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Pew participated in a plot to rob (and, if necessary, kill) a drug dealer; during the robbery on March 16, 1991, the victim was shot and died. Pew was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Pew appealed; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 1997.
- Pew filed multiple pro se PCRA petitions between 2001 and 2010, all denied; the petition at issue was filed February 17, 2016 (his fifth PCRA petition).
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 intent-to-dismiss notice and dismissed the petition on June 8, 2017 as untimely under the PCRA statute of limitations (one year from final sentence), prompting this appeal.
- Pew argued he could invoke statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar: (1) after-discovered evidence (he received court documents in 2016) and (2) a newly recognized constitutional right (Miller/Montgomery regarding juvenile LWOP). He also raised a sentencing-fraud jurisdiction argument.
- The court found Pew’s petition facially untimely (final sentence became final in Sept. 1997), and he failed to prove any statutory exception (no due diligence for after-discovered evidence; Miller/Montgomery inapplicable because Pew was 18 at the time of the offense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Pew contends his 2016 petition is timely under exceptions: after-discovered evidence (received court papers in 2016) and new constitutional rule (Miller/Montgomery) | Commonwealth argues petition is untimely (should have been filed by Sept. 25, 1998) and Pew failed to plead/prove any exception | Petition untimely; Pew did not meet burden to invoke exceptions; dismissal affirmed |
| After-discovered evidence exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Exhibits received in 2016 show he lacked prior access; excuses delay | Commonwealth: Exhibits were not shown to be previously unavailable; Pew lacked due diligence over decades | Court rejects exception for lack of due diligence; strict requirement not satisfied |
| New constitutional right exception (Miller/Montgomery § 9545(b)(1)(iii)) | Pew argues Miller (and Montgomery retroactivity) applies and he was not over 18 at offense | Commonwealth: Miller applies only to juvenile offenders under 18; Pew was 18 on date of offense | Court holds Miller/Montgomery limited to offenders under 18; Pew (age 18) cannot rely on them to overcome time-bar |
| Jurisdiction to correct sentence for alleged sentencing fraud | Pew asserts sentencing fraud under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (per Holmes) gives court jurisdiction to correct sentence | Commonwealth maintains PCRA time limits still control and jurisdiction is lacking absent a timely petition or exception | Court treats argument as subject to PCRA timeliness rules and affirms dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 155 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Callahan v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timeliness is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely PCRA petitions must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are reviewed under the PCRA and are subject to its time limits)
- Perrin v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove statutory time-bar exceptions)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence requirement for after-discovered evidence is strictly enforced)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for those under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review)