J-S01025-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
STEVEN NORTHINGTON
Appellant No. 1535 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 24, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0204881-1970
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2016
Appellant, Steven Northington, appeals from the April 24, 2015 order
dismissing, as untimely, his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful
review, we affirm.
On April 26, 1973, the trial court imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole following Appellant’s
conviction for first-degree murder.1 On March 30, 1976, our Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Northington, 353
A.2d 426 (Pa. 1976). As Appellant did not seek a writ of certiorari from the
United States Supreme Court, his judgment of sentence became final in
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).
J-S01025-16
1976 when the period for filing a certiorari petition expired. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3) (stating, “a judgment becomes 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 the review[]”). Appellant filed petitions for
post-conviction relief in 1976 and 1984, neither of which garnered him relief.
Appellant filed the instant petition on June 7, 2010; as a result, it was
facially untimely. See generally id. § 9545(b)(1).
Instantly, Appellant argues that his petition is timely under the new
constitutional right exception because the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) should be
retroactively applied. Appellant’s Brief at 3. However, our Supreme Court
has rejected this argument.2 Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1,
11 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, Cunningham v. Pennsylvania, 134 S. Ct.
2724 (2014). To the extent Appellant’s brief can be read to argue that this
Court should give broader retroactive effect to Miller under Danforth v.
Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), this Court lacks the judicial power to
decide that question for the purposes of the PCRA time-bar. See 42
____________________________________________
2
On March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Montgomery
v. Louisiana, 135 S. Ct. 1546 (2015), which presents the Miller
retroactivity question. Nonetheless, until the United States Supreme Court
issues its decision, Cunningham remains dispositive of the issue in
Pennsylvania.
-2-
J-S01025-16
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) (allowing a time-bar exception for “a
constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania … and has been held by that
court to apply retroactively[]”) (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the PCRA court properly
dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely. Accordingly, the PCRA
court’s April 24, 2015 order is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/13/2016
-3-