J-S33021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
HEATH G. QUICK :
:
Appellant : No. 1694 MDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0002037-1999
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JUNE 02, 2017
Heath G. Quick appeals pro se from the order entered in the Centre
County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his second Post Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”) petition, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Based upon the following,
we affirm.
On August 11, 2000, Quick pled guilty to murder of the first degree,1
and related offenses. Quick was 20 years old at the time of the incident.
The trial court imposed a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
parole on the murder charge. Quick filed a timely notice of appeal, but later
discontinued the appeal.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a).
J-S33021-17
On August 27, 2012, Quick filed his first PCRA petition. On February
26, 2013, the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, and this Court
affirmed. Commonwealth v. Quick, 91 A.3d 1292 [514 MDA 2013] (Pa.
Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum, at 4–5) (noting that because
Quick was 20 years at the time of the murder, Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct.
2455 (2012) (holding unconstitutional mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for defendants under the age
of 18 at the time of their crimes) would not apply to satisfy the newly
recognized constitutional right exception, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)).
On March 22, 2016,2 Quick filed this second PCRA petition, and the
PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley3 no-merit letter.
The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on August 1, 2016, and by
separate order of August 1, 2016, permitted counsel to withdraw. After
receiving Quick’s response to the Rule 907 notice, the PCRA court dismissed
Quick’s petition on September 13, 2016. This timely appeal followed. 4
____________________________________________
2
The envelope in which the PCRA petition was mailed is postmarked March
22, 2014. Under the prisoner mailbox rule, “a pro se prisoner’s document is
deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison officials for mailing.”
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011).
3
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
4
The record reflects Quick timely complied with the PCRA court’s order to
file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
-2-
J-S33021-17
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.
Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2013). A
PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying
judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S. § 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. § 9545(b)(3). There are three statutory
exceptions to the PCRA time bar. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Any
petition invoking one of these exceptions must be filed within 60 days of the
date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Relevant to this appeal, the exception set forth at Section 9545(b)(1)(iii)
requires a petitioner to plead and prove “the right asserted is 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).
Here, Quick seeks relief based on two United States Supreme Court
decisions: Miller, supra (ruling unconstitutional mandatory life without
possibility of parole sentences for juvenile offenders), and Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (filed January 25, 2016) (holding Miller applies
retroactively to cases on collateral review).5 Quick asserts the Court’s
____________________________________________
5
Quick filed this PCRA petition on March 22, 2016, within 60 days of the
Montgomery decision. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2); Commonwealth v.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S33021-17
rationales in Montgomery and Miller should extend to individuals 18 to 25
years of age. However, as Quick correctly recognizes, the holdings of
Montgomery and Miller apply to juvenile offenders. Therefore, Quick —
who was 20 years old at the time of the murder, and not a juvenile — does
not qualify as a beneficiary of the holdings derived from
Miller/Montgomery to satisfy the new constitutional right exception. See
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 42–43 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(“[O]nly a precise creation of a constitutional right can afford a petitioner
relief. While rationales that support holdings are often used by courts to
recognize new rights, this judicial tool is not available to PCRA petitioners.”
[F]or the purpose of the [§ 9545(b)(1)(iii)] timeliness exception to the
PCRA, only the holding of the case is relevant.”).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/2/2017
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding date of Montgomery
decision controls for juveniles who received life without the possibility of
parole sentences, for purposes of 60-day rule in Section 9545(b)(2)).
-4-