Com. v. Mitchell, J., III ( 2017 )

J-S62032-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JONATHAN R. MITCHELL, III, :
:
Appellant : No. 2048 MDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 10, 2016,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-41-CR-0002025-2005
BEFORE: STABILE, MOULTON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 23, 2017
Jonathan R. Mitchell, III (Appellant) appeals pro se from the November
10, 2016 order that dismissed his petition under the Post Conviction Relief
Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In 2007, Appellant was convicted of criminal homicide and sentenced
to a term of life imprisonment. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence
and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of
appeal. See Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 988 A.2d 725 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 993 A.2d 900 (Pa. 2010).
Appellant’s first and second PCRA petitions resulted in no relief. On May 6,
2016, Appellant pro se filed a third PCRA petition. On November 10, 2016,
the PCRA court dismissed that petition as untimely filed. This appeal
followed.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S62032-17
Before we can examine the substantive claims Appellant raises on
appeal, we must determine whether the filing of his PCRA petition was
timely. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274, 1280-81 (Pa.
Super. 2013).
Generally, a PCRA petition must be filed within one year from the
date a judgment becomes final. There are three exceptions to
this time requirement: (1) interference by government officials
in the presentation of the claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and
(3) an after-recognized constitutional right. When a petitioner
alleges and proves that one of these exceptions is met, the
petition will be considered timely. A PCRA petition invoking one
of these exceptions must be filed within 60 days of the date the
claims could have been presented. The timeliness requirements
of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, a PCRA
court cannot hear untimely petitions.
Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
The instant petition, filed in May of 2016, is patently untimely.
Appellant, referencing Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013),1
and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016),2 alleges that his
petition meets the timeliness exception at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)
1 “Alleyne held that any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime
must be treated as an element of the offense, submitted to a jury, rather
than a judge, and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v.
Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 812 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).
2In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), the United States Supreme
Court held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for defendants
under the age of 18 at the time of the offense violates the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Montgomery held that
Miller applies retroactively to cases on state collateral review.
Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at 732.
-2-
J-S62032-17
(providing “the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by
the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held
by that court to apply retroactively”). PCRA Petition, 5/6/2016, at 2-3.
However, our Supreme Court has held that Alleyne does not apply
retroactively to cases on collateral review. Commonwealth v.
Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016). Moreover, as Appellant was 22
years old at the time the crime was committed, Montgomery is
inapplicable.
Thus, because Appellant did not plead facts that would establish an
exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements, the PCRA court properly
dismissed Appellant’s petition without holding a hearing. See
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. 2010) (affirming
dismissal of PCRA petition without a hearing because the appellant failed to
meet burden of establishing timeliness exception).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/23/2017
-3-