Opinion
J-S39019-15 No. 2155 EDA 2014
07-28-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JEFFERY GOODWIN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 1, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0527261-1994
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Jeffery Goodwin brings this pro se appeal from the order entered on July 1, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, that dismissed as untimely his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Goodwin contends his petition may be reviewed based upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 1733 (June 25, 2012). In Miller v. Alabama , the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right for juveniles under the age of eighteen, holding that "mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against 'cruel and unusual punishments.'" 132 S. Ct. at 2460. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The PCRA court has aptly summarized the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal:
[Goodwin] was found guilty after a jury trial of first degree murder before the Honorable Judge James A. Lineberger on May 8, 1997. On the same day, [Goodwin] was sentenced by Judge Lineberger to serve a life sentence. After [Goodwin] filed his timely appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on August 4, 1999. The Supreme Court denied allocatur on December 9, 1999. [ Commonwealth v. Goodwin , 745 A.2d 39 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 749 A.2d 466 (Pa. 1999).]PCRA Court Opinion, 11/3/2014, at 1-2.
[Goodwin] filed his first post conviction relief petition through private counsel on December 8, 2000. The petition for relief was denied on February 19, 2003, after a notice of dismissal under criminal Rule 907 was sent by Judge Lineberger advising [Goodwin] that his issues were without merit. [Goodwin] filed his appeal on March 10, 2003. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court's denial of his PCRA petition on August 16, 2004, and denied [Goodwin's] application for reargument on October 21, 2004. [ Commonwealth v. Goodwin , 863 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. [Goodwin] filed his second PCRA petition on February 18, 2005. The lower court dismissed his second PCRA petition on August 2, 2005. No appeal was filed.
[Goodwin] filed his current post conviction petition on October 17, 2011.
On November 21, 2011, Goodwin filed a response to the PCRA court's Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice. On April 12, 2012, he filed an amended PCRA petition, and, on April 20, 2014, filed a memorandum of law in support of the amended petition. The docket reflects that, on August 7, 2012, Goodwin filed an amended PCRA petition with a " Miller claim." The PCRA Court determined that Goodwin's PCRA petition was untimely filed and he did not prove that any PCRA exception applied to excuse the late filing. This appeal followed.
The trial court did not issue an order requiring Goodwin to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
"In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA Court's determinations are supported by the record and are free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Taylor , 67 A.3d 1245, 1248 (Pa. 2014) (quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2695 (2014).
All PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that one of the three enumerated exceptions to the time for filing requirement is met. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final "at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking review." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). Here, Goodwin's judgment of sentence became final on March 8, 2000, ninety days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal and no petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the United States Supreme Court. See U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 13. Therefore, the present petition, filed on October 17, 2011 is patently untimely. Because Goodwin's petition was untimely, he was required to plead and prove any of three statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
Here, the only issue addressed by the PCRA court was whether Goodwin's petition satisfied the PCRA's exception for a new constitutional right of retroactive effect, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), based on the United States Court decisions in Missouri v. Frye , 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) and Lafler v. Cooper , 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012). The PCRA court concluded that these cases do not establish a time-bar exception.
Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires a petitioner to plead and prove "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." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
The PCRA court added in a footnote:
All of the claims made by [Goodwin] have not been addressed as they have been previously litigated or waived as "any claim not raised in [his] PCRA petition is waived and not cognizable on appeal." See 42 Pa.C.S. 9544(a); Pa.R.A.P. Rule 302 (stating "issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.").PCRA Court Opinion, 11/3/2014, at 4.
In this appeal, however, Goodwin does not contest the PCRA court's decision with regard to Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper. Rather, he presents five issues, claiming that he has satisfied Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) based upon Miller v. Alabama , supra . Specifically, Goodwin raises the following issues in his Statement of Questions Involved:
We note that Miller v. Alabama , supra , was issued on June 25, 2012, and that Goodwin's amended petition based upon that decision was filed on August 7, 2012. Therefore, Goodwin complied with Section 9545(b)(2) which requires that "[a]ny petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2) (emphasis supplied).
A. Did the Common Pleas Court commit an error by not ruling on [Goodwin's] Miller claim?Goodwin's Brief at 2.
B. Does mandatory life-without-parole terms for adults in homicide cases violate state & federal equal protection clauses, as well as Art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
C. Does life-without-parole terms for adults in homicide cases violate state & federal equal protection clauses, as well as Art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
D. Does mandatory life-without-parole terms for individuals over 17 violate the 8th Amendment & Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Art. I § 13 of the Pa. Constitution?
E. Should a new trial with a life qualified jury be awarded because [Goodwin's] age changes the possible punishment for 1st degree murder?
As already mentioned, the docket reflects that, on August 7, 2012, Goodwin filed an amended PCRA petition with a " Miller claim." However, that amended petition is not part of the certified record, and the PCRA court did not address this claim. In any event, for the following reasons, no relief is due.
First, our Supreme Court has held that the right announced in Miller v. Alabama , supra , does not apply retroactively. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 81 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2724 (2014). Consequently, a petitioner cannot rely on Miller v. Alabama or 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) to establish jurisdiction over an untimely PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Seskey , 86 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 103 (2014).
On March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Montgomery v. Louisiana , 135 S. Ct. 1546 (2015), which again presents the Miller v. Alabama retroactively question. Nonetheless, until the United States Supreme Court issues its decision, Cunningham remains the final word on the issue in Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, Goodwin was 25 years old at the time he committed the offense, and therefore Miller v. Alabama , which applies to "those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes," does not benefit Goodwin.
See Goodwin's Brief at 7.
132 S. Ct. at 2460.
Finally, none of Goodwin's remaining Miller v. Alabama -related claims, issues B through E, satisfy the requirements of Section 9545(b)(1)(iii). See Commonwealth v. Cintora , 69 A.3d 759, 764 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 75 (Pa. 2013) (holding contention that Miller v. Alabama applies to persons over 18 whose brains were immature at the time of the crime does not bring the matter within Section 9545(b)(1)(iii)).
Therefore, there is no basis upon which to disturb the decision of the PCRA court that dismissed Goodwin's third PCRA petition upon the conclusion that the petition was untimely and Goodwin failed to establish an applicable exception to the time bar.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2015