256 A.3d 483
Pa. Commw. Ct.2021Background
- Six adult petitioners convicted decades ago of felony murder (and related offenses) are serving mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences; time served ranges from ~23–47 years.
- On May 19, 2020 they applied for parole; the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole denied eligibility under 61 Pa. C.S. § 6137(a)(1) (no parole for inmates serving life).
- Petitioners filed a "Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint Seeking Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief" asking the Commonwealth Court to declare § 6137 unconstitutional as applied, to require parole-review procedures, and to order parole consideration for each petitioner.
- The Board filed preliminary objections, arguing the petition is a collateral attack on criminal sentences and that the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) supplies the exclusive remedy; it also argued the Board is an improper/respondent.
- The Commonwealth Court held it lacked original jurisdiction because the petition, in substance, attacks the legality of the petitioners’ sentences and thus falls within the PCRA's exclusive collateral-relief scheme; the petition was dismissed. A two-judge concurrence dissented, viewing the claims as facial/as-applied Eighth Amendment challenges to the Parole Code that PCRA timeliness rules might preclude.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction over petition challenging § 6137 | Scott et al.: challenge only § 6137 and seek declaratory/injunctive relief (parole eligibility), so this is a civil claim properly in Commonwealth Court | Board: petition is a collateral attack on LWOP sentences; PCRA is the sole means for collateral relief | Court: Lack of jurisdiction under 42 Pa. C.S. § 761(a)(1)(i); petition dismissed |
| Substance v. form / forum shopping | Petitioners: styled pleading to avoid PCRA, but relief limited to parole eligibility | Board: pleading artifice cannot change substance; court looks to core of complaint | Court: Examined substance; petition is effectively a challenge to sentences and thus PCRA territory |
| Whether striking § 6137 would provide requested relief (parole eligibility) without resentencing | Petitioners: want "mere parole eligibility," not resentencing | Board: Even if § 6137(a)(1) invalidated, § 6137(a)(3) and mandatory minimums under § 1102 mean parole eligibility depends on minimums set at sentencing; relief would require resentencing | Court: Success would necessarily affect sentencing/minimum terms; relief must be sought in sentencing forum (common pleas / PCRA) |
| Availability of PCRA timeliness exceptions and new factual developments (e.g., COVID, age) | Petitioners: PCRA time-bar prevents relief now; new facts (pandemic, age) make relief timely and require relief outside PCRA | Board: PCRA timeliness framework and exceptions apply; petitioners can attempt PCRA exceptions (newly-discovered facts or newly-recognized rights) in proper forum | Court: Not deciding merits; noted PCRA exceptions exist and may be relevant, but jurisdiction over petition here is lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, 832 A.2d 1004 (Pa. 2003) (substance of claim controls jurisdiction; cannot avoid jurisdictional limits by artful pleading)
- Meier v. Maleski, 648 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (standard for ruling on preliminary objections)
- Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (civil declaratory actions cannot be used to collaterally attack criminal proceedings)
- Castle v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 554 A.2d 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (life sentence under § 1102(b) functions as a mandatory minimum)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (Miller remedy context; resentencing can produce minimum terms enabling parole eligibility)
- Batts v. Commonwealth, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (application of Miller in Pennsylvania and interaction with parole statutes)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced substantive rule retroactive in state collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675 (Pa. 2017) (PCRA one-year filing rule and jurisdictional timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality of sentence review under PCRA still subject to PCRA time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (framework for Pennsylvania constitutional analysis)