J-A21026-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CORDELL DUANE BROADUS,
Appellant No. 1546 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0011023-2001
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
Appellant, Cordell Duane Broadus, appeals pro se from the order
entered on September 22, 2016, dismissing as untimely his fourth petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541-9546. We affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. A jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder for shooting a
man in the Lincoln-Lemmington area of the City of Pittsburgh in 2001.
Appellant was almost 20 years old at the time of the shooting. On May 1,
2002, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. We affirmed
Appellant’s judgment of sentence on January 20, 2004 and our Supreme
Court denied further review. See Commonwealth v. Broadus, 847 A.2d
755 (Pa. Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 872
J-A21026-17
A.2d 171 (Pa. 2005). In July 2006, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA
petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who filed an amended PCRA
petition. The PCRA court ultimately denied relief without an evidentiary
hearing. On December 16, 2009, we affirmed that decision and our
Supreme Court denied further review. See Commonwealth v. Broadus,
990 A.2d 37 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 996 A.2d 1067 (Pa. 2010),
certiorari denied, 562 U.S. 1068 (2010). In December 2010, Appellant filed
a second pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court dismissed the petition as
untimely, we affirmed that decision, and our Supreme Court denied further
review. See Commonwealth v. Broadus, 60 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2012),
appeal denied, 63 A.3d 1243 (Pa. 2013). Appellant filed his third pro se
PCRA petition in August 2012. The PCRA court dismissed the petition, we
affirmed, and Appellant did not seek further review. See Commonwealth
v. Broadus, 2013 WL 11255484 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Most recently, Appellant filed his fourth pro se PCRA petition on
February 16, 2016 and an amended PCRA petition on February 24, 2016.
The PCRA court appointed counsel, who subsequently petitioned to
withdraw. On June 28, 2016, the PCRA court granted counsel permission to
withdraw. By order entered on September 22, 2016, the PCRA court
dismissed Appellant’s fourth, amended PCRA petition as untimely and not
-2-
J-A21026-17
subject to an exception to the PCRA’s one-year jurisdictional time-bar. This
appeal resulted.1
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
Was Appellant denied his rights under the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 26 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution, where Appellant seeks vacation of the
life sentence and imposition of a new constitutional sentence
based on the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) [and Miller
v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)2]?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Before we may consider the merits of Appellant’s claim, we must
determine whether there is jurisdiction to consider the PCRA petition. “The
timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional.” Commonwealth v.
Furgess, 149 A.3d 90, 92 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Generally,
____________________________________________
1
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 7, 2016. On October 19,
2016, the PCRA court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied
timely. The PCRA court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on
April 27, 2017.
2
“In Miller, the Supreme Court held that mandatory life without parole for
those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.”
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 744 (Pa. Super. 2012). “Because
Pennsylvania's sentencing scheme mandates life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of second-degree murder, it is
clearly unconstitutional under Miller.” Id. The Montgomery Court
subsequently determined that Miller retroactively applied to cases on
collateral review. See Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77, 81 (Pa.
Super. 2016).
-3-
J-A21026-17
a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent
petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment became final
unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves one of the three
exceptions to the time limitations for filing the petition set forth in Section
9545(b)(1) of the PCRA. Id. Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence
became final in 2005, after our Supreme Court denied review and the period
to petition the United States Supreme Court subsequently expired. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(3); U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13. Appellant’s current
PCRA petition filed in February 2016, is patently untimely.
Without reference or argument to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements,
Appellant contends he is entitled to review because of a new constitutional
right3 recognized in Miller/Montgomery. Appellant’s Brief at 8. The PCRA
court determined that Miller/Montgomery did not apply to Appellant,
because “a careful examination of the record reveal[ed] that [Appellant’s]
date of birth is August 9, 1981 and he was 19 years and 10 months old at
the time of the offense on June 25, 2001.” PCRA Court Opinion, 4/27/2017,
at 4. In his appellate brief, Appellant concedes he was over the age of 18 at
the time of the crime. See Appellant’s Brief at 9. However, he contends
that the Miller/Montgomery line of cases “should be applied to him and
____________________________________________
3
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(b)(1)(iii).
-4-
J-A21026-17
other[s] similarly situated […] who are psychosocially immature” and under
the age of 25. Id. at 14.
We have previously rejected this precise claim in our decision in
Furgess:
The Miller decision applies to only those defendants who were
under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes.
* * *
[Furgess] argues that he nevertheless may invoke Miller
because he was a “technical juvenile,” and he relies on
neuroscientific theories regarding immature brain development
to support his claim that he is eligible for relief. But, rather than
presenting an argument that is within the scope of the Miller
decision, this argument by [Furgess] seeks an extension of
Miller to persons convicted of murder who were older at the
time of their crimes than the class of defendants subject to the
Miller holding.
We rejected reliance on this same argument for purposes of
Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) in Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d
759 (Pa. Super. 2013). The defendants in Cintora were 19 and
21 years old at the times of their crimes, but they argued that
Miller should apply to them and others whose brains were not
fully developed at the time of their crimes. We stated that a
contention that a newly-recognized constitutional right should
be extended to others does not render a petition seeking such an
expansion of the right timely pursuant to section 9545(b)(1)(iii).
We also pointed out in Cintora that the right recognized in
Miller had not been held to apply retroactively at the time of
that decision and that its non-retroactivity would have been an
alternative basis for denial of relief. 69 A.3d at 764 n. 4. Because
the U.S. Supreme Court in Montgomery has since held that
Miller does apply retroactively, this second reason stated in the
Cintora opinion is no longer good law. However, nothing in
Montgomery undermines Cintora's holding that petitioners
who were older than 18 at the time they committed murder are
not within the ambit of the Miller decision and therefore may
not rely on that decision to bring themselves within the time-bar
exception in Section 9545(b)(1)(iii). Accordingly, Cintora
-5-
J-A21026-17
remains controlling on this issue, and [Furgess’] assertion of the
time-bar exception at Section 9545(B)(1)(iii) must be rejected.
Furgess, 149 A.3d at 94 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations, original brackets, and
most quotations omitted; emphasis in original).
Based upon all of the foregoing, the PCRA court properly dismissed
Appellant’s PCRA petition for lack of jurisdiction, not subject to an exception
under the PCRA. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order denying
Appellant relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/2017
-6-