J-S59010-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SHEENA KING,
Appellant No. 3491 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 25, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0400411-1992
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 07, 2017
Appellant, Sheena King, appeals pro se from the post-conviction
court’s October 25, 2016 order denying, as untimely, her third petition under
the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
This Court previously summarized the facts and procedural history of
Appellant’s case, as follows:
In May 1991, Appellant, at the request of her then boyfriend,
killed Shawn Wilder by firing five gunshots into Wilder’s face and
neck. Appellant then fled the Philadelphia area briefly, but
returned and was arrested in connection with the murder.
Appellant confessed to killing Wilder, but claimed that she did so
only because her boyfriend threatened to kill her and her family
if she did not follow his instructions. Following a bench trial,
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary,
criminal conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. The
court subsequently sentenced Appellant to a term of life
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S59010-17
imprisonment[, without the possibility of parole (“LWOP”),] on
the murder conviction, with concurrent terms of five to ten
years’ incarceration on the burglary and conspiracy convictions,
and one to two years’ imprisonment on the possession of an
instrument of crime conviction. Appellant filed a direct appeal of
her judgment of sentence, claiming that the verdict was against
the weight of the evidence and that the evidence was insufficient
to support her conviction for first-degree murder. This Court
concluded that Appellant had waived all her claims on appeal
and affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.
King, 663 A.2d 250 (Pa. Super. 1995) (unpublished
memorandum). [Appellant did not file an allowance of appeal
with our Supreme Court.]
Commonwealth v. King, No. 4876 Philadelphia 1997, unpublished
memorandum at 1-2 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 27, 1999) (disposing of
Appellant’s appeal from the denial of her first PCRA petition, discussed
infra).
On January 16, 1997, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition and
counsel was appointed. On October 20, 1997, the PCRA court denied that
petition and, on appeal, this Court affirmed. See King, supra, No. 4876
Philadelphia 1997. On May 26, 2004, Appellant filed a second, pro se PCRA
petition. That petition was also dismissed and, after this Court affirmed on
appeal, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of
appeal. Commonwealth v. King, 894 A.2d 819 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 903 A.2d 537 (Pa. 2006).
On August 8, 2012, Appellant filed her third, pro se PCRA petition,
which underlies the present appeal. She also filed an amended petition on
March 10, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P.
907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition, to which she
-2-
J-S59010-17
submitted a timely, pro se response. However, on October 25, 2016, the
PCRA court issued an order dismissing Appellant’s petition as being untimely
filed.
Appellant then filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal, as well as a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On
January 26, 2017, the PCRA court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Herein,
Appellant presents the following three questions for our review, which we
reproduce verbatim:
A. Did Petitioner timely file a PCRA and thus it should not have
been dismissed as Untimely wiithout an evidentiary hearing
on the merits?
B. Did Court of Common Pleas err in determining that Graham v
Florida, Montgomery v Louisiana, and People v House did not
apply to Petitioner?
C. Does Graham v Florida and People v House apply to Petitioner
whose culpability is questionable when age, history of abuse,
extreme duress, and diminished capacity are considered
according to recent neuroscience in abovementioned cases
and additional cases under review?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order denying a petition
under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported
by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We must begin by addressing the
timeliness of Appellant’s petition, because the PCRA time limitations
implicate our jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in order to
address the merits of a petition. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d
-3-
J-S59010-17
1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, any petition for post-conviction
relief, including a second or subsequent one, must be filed within one year of
the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless one of the following
exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies:
(b) Time for filing petition.--
(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second
or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the
date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition
alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the
result of interference by government officials with
the presentation of the claim in violation of the
Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the
Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petitioner and could not have been
ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) 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)(i)-(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke one of
these exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on September
26, 1999, at the expiration of the thirty-day time-period for filing a petition
for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(3) (directing that a judgment of sentence becomes final at the
-4-
J-S59010-17
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking the
review); Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) (stating, “a petition for allowance of appeal shall
be filed with the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court within 30 days of the
entry of the order of the Superior Court sought to be reviewed”). Thus,
Appellant’s current petition filed in August of 2012 is patently untimely and,
for this Court to have jurisdiction to review the merits thereof, she must
prove that she meets one of the exceptions to the timeliness requirements
set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
Instantly, Appellant does not specifically identify which timeliness
exception she is attempting to meet. However, she seems to be arguing
that she satisfies the ‘new retroactive right’ exception of section
9545(b)(1)(iii). Specifically, Appellant contends that her LWOP sentence is
unconstitutional under the rationale of various decisions by the United States
Supreme Court, including Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (holding
that the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility
of parole on juvenile non-homicide offenders violates the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment), Roper v.
Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding that subjecting juveniles under the
age of 18 to the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment), and Miller
v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012) (holding “that the Eighth
Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison
without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders”).
-5-
J-S59010-17
Notably, Appellant concedes that she was 18 at the time she
committed the murder for which she is serving her LWOP sentence.
Appellant’s Brief at 8. Nevertheless, she contends that the rationale
underlying the Roper, Graham, and Miller decisions should be extended to
her case because at the time of the murder, she had the same cognitive
functioning as someone under the age of 18, and her “history of abuse,
incest, sexual abuse, and subsequent diagnosis of a mental disorder further
impeded [her] brain’s development[,]” such that her LWOP sentence
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 19.
This Court previously rejected a similar argument in Commonwealth
v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011), stressing that “[f]or purposes
of deciding whether the timeliness exception to the PCRA based on the
creation of a new constitutional right is applicable, the distinction between
the holding of a case and its rationale is crucial since only a precise
creation of a constitutional right can afford a petitioner relief.” Id. at 42
(emphasis added). Examining, then, the holdings of Roper and Graham, it
is clear that neither case warrants sentencing relief for Appellant. Again,
Graham held that LWOP sentences for non-homicide juvenile offenders
violates the Eighth Amendment, and Roper held that imposing the death
penalty on juvenile defendants constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
In this case, Appellant not only was an adult at the time of her crimes, but
she was also convicted of murder, and received an LWOP sentence for that
-6-
J-S59010-17
offense; consequently, the holdings of Graham and Roper do not apply to
her case.1
For the same reason, Appellant also cannot rely on Miller to meet the
timeliness exception of section 9545(b)(1)(iii). Miller held that the Eighth
Amendment precludes the mandatory imposition of an LWOP sentencing on
a juvenile offender. Miller, 567 U.S. at 479. “The Miller decision applies
only to those defendants who were ‘under the age of 18 at the time of their
crimes.’” Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90, 94 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 465). Because Appellant was 18 years old
when she murdered the victim in this case, she cannot rely on Miller, or the
rationale expressed therein, to satisfy the timeliness exception of section
9545(b)(1)(iii).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/7/2017
____________________________________________
1 Moreover, we point out that even if Graham or Roper did apply to
invalidate Appellant’s LWOP sentence, she cannot satisfy the 60-day
requirement of section 9545(b)(2), as she filed her current petition several
years after those decisions were filed.
-7-