J-S51007-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RAHMAN HENDERSON
Appellant No. 2055 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 2, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001357-1996
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
Appellant, Rahman Henderson, appeals from the order entered in the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his serial petition filed
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546. On October 7, 1995, Appellant fatally shot the victim during a drug
deal. A jury convicted Appellant on February 5, 1997, of second-degree
murder and related offenses. On April 1, 1997, the court sentenced
Appellant, inter alia, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on March 17, 1998, and our
Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on July 14, 2000.
Appellant litigated several unsuccessful PCRA petitions before filing the
current petition pro se on July 23, 2012. The PCRA court appointed counsel,
_________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S51007-15
who filed a Turner/Finley1 “no-merit” letter and an application to withdraw
as counsel on December 3, 2012. Appellant filed a pro se response. On
January 9, 2014, the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and permitted
counsel to withdraw. The PCRA court subsequently dismissed Appellant’s
petition on June 2, 2014. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal
pursuant to the Prisoner Mailbox Rule.2
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.
Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008), cert.
denied, 556 U.S. 1285, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (2009). A PCRA
petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment
becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at
the conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking
review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The three statutory exceptions to the
timeliness provisions in the PCRA allow for very limited circumstances under
which the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).
A petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a petition within sixty
days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(2). When asserting the newly created constitutional right exception
____________________________________________
1
Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
2
On July 9, 2014, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement, but Appellant failed to comply.
-2-
J-S51007-15
under section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “a petitioner must prove that there is a ‘new’
constitutional right and that the right ‘has been held’ by that court to apply
retroactively.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa.Super.
2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012).
Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on October
12, 2000. Appellant filed his current petition on July 23, 2012, almost
twelve (12) years later; thus, the petition is patently untimely. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant attempts to invoke Section
9545(b)(1)(iii), contending his sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to
Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407
(2012).3 Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has ruled Miller does not apply
retroactively to sentences which became final before the filing date of Miller
(June 25, 2012). See Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 622 Pa. 543, 81
A.3d 1 (2013). Moreover, Appellant was eighteen (18) years-old when he
shot and killed the victim. Thus, Miller does not apply to his case. See
Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759, 764 (Pa.Super. 2013)
(explaining Miller did not apply to petitioners who were eighteen or older
when they committed underlying crimes). Accordingly, the PCRA court
____________________________________________
3
In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that a mandatory
sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for those
under the age of eighteen (18) at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. See Miller,
supra at ___, 132 S.Ct. at 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d at ___.
-3-
J-S51007-15
properly dismissed Appellant’s petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/9/2015
-4-
Com. v. Henderson, R.
Combined Opinion