Opinion
J-S24002-17 No. 844 WDA 2016
04-20-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VERNON WILLIAMS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 3, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0004687-2003 CP-02-CR-0017550-2002 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
On November 20, 2003, a jury found Appellant, Vernon Williams, guilty on charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy. The trial court sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment. He was 19 at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied his petition for allowance of appeal on December 7, 2005. This appeal concerns the dismissal of Williams's third petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), which he filed pro se on March 10, 2016. After careful review, we agree with the PCRA court that Williams's petition was time-barred and therefore affirm.
Williams's notice of appeal was docketed in this Court in excess of 30 days from the entry of the order dismissing his PCRA. However, he is incarcerated and his proof of service is dated 24 days after the entry of the order. We conclude that this appeal is timely pursuant to the "prisoner mailbox rule." Commonwealth v. Jones , 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997).
A detailed recitation of the facts supporting Williams's judgment of sentence and a description of the procedural history of this case are unnecessary given our resolution of his argument. Procedurally, it is important to note that the instant petition was filed while Williams's appeal from the denial of his second, untimely PCRA petition was pending in this Court. The PCRA court therefore was without jurisdiction to entertain Williams's third petition. See Commonwealth v. Lark , 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000).
There was a lengthy delay in the processing of that appeal while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed Williams's petition for federal habeas corpus relief. See Williams v. Folino , 625 Fed.Appx. 150 (3d Cir. 2015) (non-precedential). --------
Even if we were to review the substance of Williams's petition, we would conclude he is due no relief. Williams based his petition on Miller v. Alabama , 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016). In Miller , the Court held that "mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment." 132 S.Ct., at 2464. In Montgomery , the Court found that Miller recognized "a new substantive rule of constitutional law" and should apply retroactively. 136 S.Ct. at 729.
Miller , however, applies to "juveniles," 132 S.Ct., at 2464, that is, only to those defendants who were "under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes," id ., at 2460. Williams concedes that he was 19 at the time of the crime underlying his convictions. See Appellant's Brief, at 3. He therefore would be due no relief in any event.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/20/2017