Commonwealth v. Reed
107 A.3d 137
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Reed filed his fourth PCRA petition on July 10, 2012; the PCRA court dismissed it as patently frivolous in December 2013.
- Counsel sought withdrawal under Turner and Finley, with a contemporaneous no-merit letter and Anders-style briefing.
- The central issue was whether Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to Reed’s case, given its direct-review history and final judgment in 1995.
- Reed was 17 years old at the time of the offense (two months shy of his eighteenth birthday); the judgment became final in 1995 with a 1996 PCRA deadline presumed.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Cunningham (2013) held Miller is not retroactive under Teague’s framework for cases final before Miller, affecting Reed’s timeliness analysis.
- The majority affirmed dismissal of the PCRA petition and granted counsel’s withdrawal; there is a concurrence by Judge Bender disputing whether Miller is retroactive and whether the analysis should treat it as a watershed rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Miller retroactive for PCRA purposes? | Reed argues Miller applies retroactively to his collateral review. | Commonwealth contends Miller is not retroactive under Cunningham and Teague. | Miller is not retroactive; petition not saved by retroactivity. |
| Is Reed's PCRA petition timely under 9545(b)(1) and 9545(b)(2)? | Miller’s ruling could toll or reopen timing. | Petition untimely; no applicable exception proven. | Petition facially untimely with no proven exception. |
| Was counsel’s withdrawal under Turner/Finley properly conducted? | Counsel followed Turner/Finley procedures. | Procedural compliance supported withdrawal. | Counsel’s withdrawal properly granted; independent review conducted. |
| Does Batts retroactivity or related Pennsylvania law alter this outcome? | Batts could recognize a retroactive rule similar to Miller. | Batts does not compel retroactivity for Reed. | Batts retroactivity argument rejected; Miller not retroactive here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. (2012)) (juvenile LWOP unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (Miller not retroactive under Teague; Teague analysis applied)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (general rule of non-retroactivity with two narrow exceptions)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (bedrock element test for retroactivity; Crawford not retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (discussion of analogous retroactivity principles under PA constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Seskey, 86 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpretation of 9545(b)(1)(iii) timing language)