J-S59043-14

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellee 

 v.

LARRY STEPHENSON, 

 Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

 No. 1357 EDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order entered February 4, 2014, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, 

Criminal Division, at No: CP-23-CR-0100982-1974 

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 

 Larry Stephenson (Appellant) pro se appeals from the February 4, 

2014 order which denied his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. 

 In October 1973, Appellant, 24 years old at the time, was involved in 

the robbery of a bar that resulted in a patron being shot and killed. He was 

convicted of several offenses, including first-degree murder. On April 25, 

1975, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of 

parole. 

 On August 15, 2013, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition, which is 

the subject of this appeal. On November 27, 2013, the PCRA court filed a 

notice of intent to dismiss the petition as untimely pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 

907. Appellant responded, and the petition was dismissed by order of 

February 4, 2014. 
J-S59043-14

- 2 - 

 Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the PCRA 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents three questions to 

this Court on appeal. 

I. Did the [PCRA] court err in not granting a resentencing 

hearing to Appellant ... when it did not consider whether 

mandatory life-without-parole terms for adults in nonhomicide and homicide cases violate state and federal 

equal protection clauses, as well as Art. 7 of the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights? 

II. Did the [PCRA] court err in not granting a resentencing 

hearing to Appellant ... when it did not consider whether 

mandatory life-without-parole terms for individuals over 

age 17 but below age 25 violates the United States 

Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, Art. 5 of the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, as well as Art. 1, Section 13 

of the Pennsylvania Constitution? 

III. Did the [PCRA] court err in not granting a resentencing 

hearing to Appellant ... when it did not consider whether a 

new trial with a “life-qualified” jury because Appellant’s 

age changes the possible punishment for first/second 

degree murder? 

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted). 

We consider Appellant’s arguments under the following standard of 

review. 

On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review 

calls for us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is 

supported by the record and free of legal error. The PCRA 

court's findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support 

for the findings in the certified record. The PCRA court's factual 

determinations are entitled to deference, but its legal 

determinations are subject to our plenary review. 
J-S59043-14

- 3 - 

Commonwealth v. Nero, 58 A.3d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quotations 

and citations omitted). 

 The timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional. 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477, 479 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or 

subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment 

of sentence became final unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner 

proves, that an exception to the time for filing the petition is met. 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9545. 

Applying this law to the case at hand, we address together Appellant’s 

first and second questions. It is clear that Appellant’s petition is facially 

untimely: his judgment of sentence became final in 1998.

1

 Appellant alleges 

that his petition is timely based upon the United States Supreme Court’s 

holding in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2013). Presumably, 

Appellant is asserting that the Miller decision satisfies the following 

timeliness exception: “the right asserted is a constitutional right that was 

recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court 

 

1

In a previous appeal to this Court, we concluded that Appellant’s sentence 

became final on January 5, 1998, when the 90 day period expired in which 

Appellant had to file a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court 

after our Supreme Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. 

Commonwealth v. Stephenson, 764 A.2d 1129 (Pa. Super. 2000) 

(unpublished memorandum at 5). 
J-S59043-14

- 4 - 

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)(iii). 

The alleged timeliness exception clearly does not apply to Appellant’s

petition. First, the holding of Miller is “that the Eighth Amendment forbids a 

sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole 

for juvenile offenders.” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469 (emphasis added). 

Appellant was not a juvenile at the time this incident occurred. 

Furthermore, in Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013), 

cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2724 (2014), our Supreme Court held that the United 

States Supreme Court’s holding in Miller does not apply retroactively. Thus, 

even if Appellant were a juvenile at the time of the murder, Miller would not 

entitle him to relief.2

 

Because Appellant did not plead facts that would establish an 

exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements, the PCRA court properly 

dismissed Appellant’s petition.

 Order affirmed. 

 

2

 Because Appellant untimely filed his petition, we need not address his third 

issue, where Appellant argues that “he is entitled to a trial by a ‘lifequalified’ jury because of his similar biological characteristics as those under 

the age of 18.” Appellant’s Brief at 16.
J-S59043-14

- 5 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/9/2014