Commonwealth v. Secreti
134 A.3d 77
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Justin Secreti committed a home invasion, robbery, and the murders of two victims when he was 16 (1993); he pled guilty in 1995 and received automatic life without parole (LWOP) sentences in 1996.
- Secreti filed multiple PCRA petitions; the instant PCRA petition was filed pro se on August 15, 2012, invoking Miller v. Alabama as a newly recognized constitutional rule.
- The PCRA court denied relief relying on Commonwealth v. Cunningham, which held Miller was not available on collateral review.
- Secreti sought reinstatement of appeal rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court later allowed appeal and Secreti appealed timely.
- The Superior Court held Miller announced a substantive rule prohibiting mandatory LWOP for juveniles and that Miller’s retroactivity must be treated as effective from Miller’s decision date; Montgomery clarified retroactivity but the 60-day filing trigger is measured from Montgomery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller created a new constitutional rule that applies retroactively on collateral review | Secreti: Miller categorical ban on mandatory juvenile LWOP is substantive and retroactive | Commonwealth: Miller not available on collateral review under Cunningham | Held: Miller announces a substantive rule and is retroactive for collateral review as of Miller's decision date |
| Whether Secreti's PCRA petition was timely or fits a timeliness exception (42 Pa.C.S. §9545) | Secreti: Petition filed within 60 days of Miller and invokes §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth: Petition untimely; Cunningham forecloses Miller retroactivity on collateral review | Held: Retroactivity "has been held" as of Miller's date; Montgomery clarifies retroactivity and its 60-day trigger is measured from Montgomery |
| Appropriate remedy when mandatory juvenile LWOP was imposed | Secreti: Vacatur and resentencing or parole eligibility consideration | Commonwealth: (implicit) deny collateral relief | Held: Vacate judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with Batts (consider age-related factors; permit parole consideration) |
| Effect of gap between Miller and Montgomery on pending PCRA petitions | Secreti: Miller alone adequate when petition filed within 60 days of Miller | Commonwealth: Retroactivity unclear until Montgomery | Held: Court harmonizes law — retroactivity deemed to have existed at Miller's date; but the §9545(b)(2) 60-day filing period runs from Montgomery |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule and applies retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (held Miller not available on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (remedy requires sentencing court to consider youth-related factors and permit parole consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (§9545(b)(1)(iii) requires that retroactivity be "has been held" at time petition filed)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (procedural timeliness and 60-day filing rule under the PCRA)