Com. v. Hagwood, K. ( 2016 )

J-S55002-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
KIYIEM HAGWOOD
Appellant No. 1871 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 29, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0701822-2006
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 1, 2016.
Kiyiem Hagwood appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his
petition1 filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541-9546. In 2008, Hagwood was convicted of second-degree murder
and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Andrew Rivera.
At the time of the offenses, Hagwood was seventeen years old. Hagwood
was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Hagwood’s pro se petition was timely filed as his judgment of sentence
became final on April 25, 2011. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Sup. Ct. R.
13. Therefore, Hagwood had until April 25, 2012 to file his petition.
Instantly, he filed his pro se petition on September 8, 2011, which he later
amended on November 17, 2011 and August 21, 2012. Appointed counsel
filed an amended petition on July 24, 2014. In the July 2014 petition,
Hagwood raised the Miller issue.
J-S55002-16
On appeal, Hagwood argues that the PCRA court erred in determining
that he is not eligible for resentencing based on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.
Ct. 2455 (2012). In Miller, the United States Supreme Court concluded that
mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 2464. In
light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (as revised Jan. 27, 2016), which held
that Miller must be applied retroactively, we reverse and remand. See
Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (interpreting
Montgomery as making retroactivity under Miller effective as of the date
of the Miller decision).
Order reversed. Case remanded for resentencing.2 Jurisdiction
relinquished.3
____________________________________________
2
The Commonwealth does not oppose a remand limited to resentencing.
Appellee’s Brief, at 2.
3
We note that at the time the PCRA court ruled upon Hagwood’s petition,
Montgomery had not yet been decided. Thus, the court ruled in
accordance with the prevailing law at the time which was that the Miller
holding does not apply retroactively to an inmate, serving a life sentence
without parole, who has exhausted his direct appeal rights and is proceeding
under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa.
2013).
-2-
J-S55002-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/1/2016
-3-