J

- S19004

- 19

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WILLIAM LAWSON

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1095 EDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order March 9, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0609631

- 1997

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 22 , 2019 William Lawson appeals, pro se , from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing as untimely his fourth petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546 (PCRA). We affirm. On January 9, 1998, following a bench trial before the Honorable Lisa A. Richette, Lawson was convicted of first

- degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel had improperly prevented Lawson from testifying on his own behalf. Commonwealth v. Lawson , 748 A.2d 772 (Pa. Super. 1998 ) (unpublished memorandum )

. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded this claim w as meritless. On appeal, this Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Lawson , 789 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. 2001).J

- S19004

- 19

- 2

-

Lawson filed his first PCRA petition, pro se , on October 30, 2002. The
PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition. On May 11, 2004, the PCRA court denied relief. On appeal, this Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on December 29,
2005. See Commonwealth v. Lawson , 885 A.2 d 578 (Pa. Super. Aug.15, 2005) ( T able), allocatur denied , 892 A.2d 822 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2005 ) (Table ). Lawson filed a second pro se PCRA petition on February 15, 2008, and an amended pro se petition on March 19, 2008. The PCRA dismissed this petition as unt imely. On appeal, this Court affirmed. See Commonwealth
v. Lawson , 990 A.2d 48 ( Pa. Super. Dec. 24, 2009) (Table). Lawson did not seek review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On April 21, 2010, Law son filed filed a third pro se petition, and an

amen ded pro se petition on July 13, 2010. The PCRA court dismissed this petition as untimely on February 6, 2010. Lawson did not file an appeal. In his instant petition, filed pro se on March 25, 2016, Lawson claims the United States Supre me Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), renders his petition timely under the “newly

- recognized constitutional right” exception to the PCRA time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). In Montgomery , the Supreme Court held Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012) , which prohibited mandatory life sentence s without possibility of parole for juveniles as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “ cruel and unusual punishment s,” applies retroactively to cases on collate ral review.J

- S19004

- 19

- 3

-

The PCRA court found Miller inapplicable because Lawson was not under the age of eighteen at the time of his offense. Lawson was born on November 5, 1977; at the time of the murder, on November 7, 1996, Lawson was nineteen years old. Lawson concedes Miller does not apply, but argues it should extend to defendants who were over the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes based on developments in neuroscientific research

– the ”virtual minor” or “immature brain” studies. See Roper v. Simmo ns , 543 U.S. 551 (2005) and Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 (2010). Because Lawson was over the age of eighteen at the time he committed the murder, the PCRA court properly dismissed his petition as untimely. See Commonwealth v. Lee , 2019 PA Super 64 (file d Mar. 1, 2019) (en banc) (holding p rohibition in Miller on mandatory life

- without

- parole sentences for juvenile offenders as cruel and unusual punishment did not extend to defendant who was over age of 18 at time of her commission of murder , but who had a lleged characteristics of youth that rendered her categorically less culpable under Eighth Amendment, and thus defendant could not invoke Miller as exception, for newly

- recognized constitutional right, to timeliness requirements of PCRA , despite argument t hat “immature brain” studies would have established defendant’s brain was underdeveloped at time of her crime; express age limit was essential to orderly and practical application of law ). Order affirmed.J

- S19004

- 19

- 4

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/22/19