Com. v. Watson, J. ( 2018 )

J-S29030-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFREY WATSON :
:
Appellant : No. 2387 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 29, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0825271-1983
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MAY 10, 2018
Jeffrey Watson (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order denying as
untimely his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA),
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows: In March
1986, a jury convicted Appellant of second-degree murder and related
charges. At the time he committed the murder, Appellant was twenty years
old. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory life sentence without
parole. This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on March 23,
1988, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of
appeal on December 15, 1988. Commonwealth v. Watson, 1178 PHL 1987
(Pa. Super. Mar. 23, 1988) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 555
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29030-18
A.2d 114 (Pa. 1988).
On August 23, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition seeking to
correct his sentence on the basis of the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).1 On March 23, 2016,
Appellant filed a supplemental PCRA petition citing the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), which
held that Miller applies retroactively. The PCRA court appointed counsel. On
May 19, 2017, PCRA counsel filed a motion to withdraw and “no-merit” letter
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). The
PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Rule 907 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and Appellant did not file a
response. On June 29, 2017, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition
on the basis it was untimely filed and granted PCRA counsel’s motion to
withdraw his appearance.
Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. The PCRA court filed a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion without ordering Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the
____________________________________________
1 The United States Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment when applied to
defendants who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. Miller,
567 U.S. at 2460.
-2-
J-S29030-18
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appellant presents the following questions for our review:
Did the PCRA [c]ourt error [sic] in finding [A]ppellant’s petition
untimely?
Is the [A]ppellant entitled to resentencing under Miller v.
Alabama?
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (suggested answers omitted).
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a petition
under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported
by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 603 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). The PCRA court’s
findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the
certified record. Commonwealth v. Brown, 143 A.3d 418, 420 (Pa. Super.
2016) (citation omitted). The PCRA court has the discretion to decline to hold
a hearing on the petition if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has
no support either in the record or from other evidence. Commonwealth v.
Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must first
determine whether the PCRA court correctly concluded that Appellant’s
petition was untimely. The timeliness of a post-conviction relief petition is
jurisdictional. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010)
(citation omitted). Thus, if a PCRA petition is untimely, neither an appellate
court nor the PCRA court has jurisdiction over the petition. Id. “Without
-3-
J-S29030-18
jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the
substantive claims” raised in an untimely petition. Id.Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA must be filed within one
year of the date the judgment becomes final unless the petition alleges, and
the petitioner proves, an exception to the time for filing the petition.2 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Under these exceptions, the petitioner must plead
and prove that: “(1) there has been interference by government officials in
the presentation of the claim; or (2) there exists after-discovered facts or
evidence; or (3) a new constitutional right has been recognized.”
Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 591 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation
omitted). A PCRA petition invoking one of these statutory exceptions must be
filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). Moreover, exceptions to the time restrictions of the
PCRA must be pled in the petition and may not be raised for the first time on
appeal. Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super. 2007),
appeal denied, 959 A.2d 927 (Pa. 2008); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues
not raised before the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal.”).
____________________________________________
2 But see Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396, 398 (Pa. Super. 2002)
(“The 1995 amendments to the PCRA also provide that if the judgment of
sentence became final before the effective date of the amendments (i.e.,
January 16, 1996), a PCRA petition could be filed within one year, or by
January 16, 1997. This grace period does not apply to second or subsequent
petitions, regardless of when the first petition was filed.”).
-4-
J-S29030-18
Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final prior to the
effective date of the 1995 amendments to the PCRA, and Appellant thus had
until January 16, 1997 to file his first PCRA petition. See Fairiror, 809 A.2d
at 398. Appellant concedes that he did not file the instant petition until August
23, 2012, and the petition is facially untimely. Appellant’s Brief at 8.
However, Appellant invokes the constitutional right exception under Section
9545(b)(1)(iii) on the basis that the United States Supreme Court recognized
a new constitutional right in Miller that was held to apply retroactively in
Montgomery. Id. at 10. Appellant contends that his educational deficiencies
and lack of maturity at the time he committed the murder rendered him no
different than a juvenile of the same mental capacity. Id. at 11-12. Appellant
therefore seeks to extend Miller to persons like himself who were older at the
time of their crimes than the class of defendants subject to the Miller holding.
Appellant’s argument is without merit. Appellant acknowledges that he
was twenty years old at the time he committed the murder, and this Court
has refused to extend Miller to individuals who were 18 years of age or older
at the time of their crimes. See Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90,
94 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“[P]etitioners who were older than 18 at the time they
committed murder are not within the ambit of the Miller decision and
therefore may not rely on that decision to bring themselves within the time-
bar exception in Section 9545(b)(1)(iii).”).
In sum, Appellant’s PCRA petition is facially untimely, and he has failed
-5-
J-S29030-18
to meet his burden of proof with regard to an exception to the timeliness
requirements of the PCRA. The PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s
petition for post-conviction relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/10/18
-6-