Commonwealth v. Seskey
86 A.3d 237
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Regis Seskey, a juvenile at the time of the offense, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for the February 1992 shooting death of Mark Bova.
- Appellant’s first PCRA petition was filed in August 1997 and dismissed in August 1998; appellate review followed through 2002 and 2003 without grant of relief.
- Appellant filed a second PCRA petition on July 19, 2010, which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b); the court noted no applicable exceptions and relied on Ortiz’s Graham v. Florida-based reasoning for homicide cases.
- Appellant appealed, filing a timely notice of appeal on May 14, 2012; during the pendency, Miller v. Alabama (2012) recognized a juvenile Eighth Amendment right, triggering potential post-conviction relief.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Cunningham decision (2013) held Miller does not apply retroactively, affecting jurisdiction to review untimely PCRA petitions under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) and foreclosing relief on the merits absent a valid exception.
- The majority concludes Appellant’s second PCRA petition is untimely with no applicable exceptions, thus the court lacks jurisdiction to review the substantive claims; issue IV (habeas corpus) is treated as waived and not a viable jurisdictional path.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seskey’s life sentence for a juvenile is constitutionally invalid under Miller and related claims | Seskey asserts Miller retroactivity and Eighth Amendment protections. | Court adopts Cunningham, Miller not retroactive; jurisdiction lacking. | Lacked jurisdiction; Miller retroactivity not recognized; claims dismissed for untimeliness. |
| Whether the court should apply Miller retroactively and remand for re-sentencing | Must apply Miller to obtain relief and possible resentencing. | Cunningham forecloses retroactive application for post-conviction review. | No retroactive application; no remand for re-sentencing. |
| Whether Seskey’s mandatory life without parole constitutes cruel punishment under state and federal constitutions | Claims violative of Eighth and Pennsylvania constitutional provisions. | Not reviewable due to lack of jurisdiction and timeliness. | Not reviewable; jurisdiction barred by untimeliness and lack of retroactive relief. |
| Whether Appellant can pursue relief under habeas corpus to bypass the PCRA time-bar | Castillo’s concurrence suggested habeas corpus as potential remedy. | Claims cognizable under PCRA; habeas corpus petition improper to circumvent time-bar. | Waived; petition treated as untimely PCRA petition; habeas route not pursued. |
| Whether Appellant should be re-sentenced under the most severe lesser-included offense | Seek re-sentencing based on third-degree murder | Not reachable due to lack of jurisdiction over untimely petition | Not reachable; jurisdiction lacking; issues I–III and V review denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 17 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Miller issues not retroactive in homicide context)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (Miller does not apply retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness; jurisdictional time bar applies)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214 (1999) (PCRA time-bar is jurisdictional and mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 606 Pa. 64, 994 A.2d 1091 (2010) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (litigation finality concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 571 Pa. 219, 812 A.2d 497 (2002) (retroactivity and rights recognition in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Slotcavage, 939 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness and jurisdictional review rules)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA filing deadlines)