J-S15008-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MANUEL ORTIZ
Appellant No. 1516 MDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003548-1994
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2015
Manuel Ortiz appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County denying his petition filed under the Post
Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Because this Court does
not have jurisdiction to review Ortiz’s petition, we affirm the PCRA court’s
order.
On July 10, 1995, Ortiz was convicted of second-degree murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On direct
appeal, this Court affirmed Ortiz’s judgment of sentence. Thereafter, Ortiz
filed PCRA petitions in 1997, 2001, 2006 and 2010, all of which the PCRA
court denied. On August 20, 2012, following the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), Ortiz filed a
fifth PCRA petition. The Court in Miller held that “the Eighth Amendment
J-S15008-15
forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility
of parole for juvenile offenders.” Id. at 2469. The PCRA court denied Ortiz’
fifth petition, concluding that it was untimely filed under the PCRA. See
Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (holding
constitutional right announced in Miller v. Alabama is not retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral appeal).1 See also Com. v. Cristina, ---
A.3d ----, 2015 WL 1730538 (Pa. Super.), 2015 PA Super 74. Consequently,
Ortiz cannot rely upon Miller or subsection 9545(b)(iii) to establish
jurisdiction over his untimely PCRA petition in any Pennsylvania court. We
are bound by Cunningham. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to
review Ortiz’s petition. See Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520,
522 (Pa. 2006) (“The PCRA's time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature.
Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor the trial court
has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have
the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”).
____________________________________________
1
The United States Supreme Court has since denied certiorari in
Cunningham. See Cunningham v. Pennsylvania, 134 S.Ct. 2724 (U.S.
2014). However, on March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari
in Montgomery v. Louisiana, –––U.S. ––––, 2015 WL 1280236 (2015),
which again presents the Miller retroactivity question. Nonetheless, until
the United States Supreme Court issues its decision, we are bound by
Cunningham.
-2-
J-S15008-15
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/29/2015
-3-
Com. v. Ortiz, M.
Combined Opinion