Commonwealth v. Williams, 14 EM 2015

• Citation: 129 A.3d 1199
• Decision Date: 21 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14 EM 2015,14 EM 2015
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Terrance WILLIAMS, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

129 A.3d 1199

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner

v.Terrance WILLIAMS, Respondent.

No. 14 EM 2015

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 10, 2015.

Decided Dec. 21, 2015.

David Peter Johnson, Esq., Michael Lee Kichline, Esq., Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, Amicus Curiae.

Hugh J. Burns Jr., Esq., Philadelphia, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Rodney A. Corey, Esq., Thomas Walter Dymek, Esq., James Guthrie Mann, Esq., Pennsylvania House of Representatives, for Speaker of the House of Representatives, Amicus Curiae.

J. Andrew Crompton, Esq., Michael Curry Gerdes, Esq., Pennsylvania Senate, for President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.

Sean Martin Concannon, Esq., Marisa Grace Zizzi Lehr, Esq., Office of General Counsel, H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., Esq., Pennsylvania Governor's Office of General Counsel, Denise Joy Smyler, Esq., Philadelphia, for Tom Wolf.

Timothy Patrick Kane, Esq., Federal Public Defender's Office, Shawn Nolan, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for Terrance Williams.

Nicole Jeanne Aiken, Esq., John Norig Ellison, Esq., Philadelphia, Mariah Haller McGrogan, Esq., Ginevra Felice Ventre, Esq., Pittsburgh, Michael Patrick Yingling, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, Mary Catherine Roper, Esq., Witold J. Walczak, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of PA, for Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Philadelphia Bar Association, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Amici Curiae.

OPINION

JUSTICE BAER.

This case presents the issue of whether Governor Tom Wolf exceeded his constitutional authority pursuant to Article IV, Section 9(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution when he issued a temporary reprieve to death row inmate Terrance Williams pending receipt of the forthcoming report of the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment (Task Force) and until the concerns raised by the Task Force are addressed. We also examine the jurisdictional basis for review of such inquiry. For the reasons set forth herein, we exercise our King's Bench authority to review the issue presented and we conclude that Governor Wolf acted within his constitutional authority in granting the reprieve.

The record establishes that Respondent Terrance Williams was convicted of first degree murder after he robbed and beat Amos Norwood to death with a tire iron in 1984. He was subsequently sentenced to death. The details relating to Williams' conviction are set forth in this Court's opinion affirming his death sentence on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 524 Pa. 218, 570 A.2d 75 (1990). In the years that followed, Williams filed several petitions for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 –9546. After reviewing each of his first three PCRA petitions, the trial court denied relief and this Court affirmed. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 581 Pa. 57, 863 A.2d 505 (2004) ; Commonwealth v. Williams, 589 Pa. 355, 909 A.2d 297 (2006) (per curiam ); Commonwealth v. Williams, 599 Pa. 495, 962 A.2d 609 (2009) (per curiam ). During the pendency of his third PCRA petition, Williams also filed a federal habeas corpus petition. The federal district court denied relief, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195, 238 (3d Cir.2011).

In 2012, Williams filed his fourth PCRA petition, following which the trial court granted a stay of execution, vacated his death sentence, and awarded him a new penalty hearing. On December 15, 2014, we vacated the stay of execution and the grant of a new penalty phase, and reinstated Williams' sentence of death, concluding that he had not satisfied the "governmental interference" exception to the timeliness requirement of the PCRA set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i). Commonwealth v. Williams, ––– Pa. ––––, 105 A.3d 1234 (2014), cert. granted on other grounds, Williams v. Pennsylvania, –––U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 28, 192 L.Ed.2d 999 (2015).¹ During the pendency of his fourth PCRA petition, Williams sought a recommendation of pardon or commutation from the Board of Pardons, which request was denied.

On January 13, 2015, Governor Tom Corbett signed a death warrant scheduling Williams' execution for March 4, 2015. Shortly after the death warrant was signed, Governor Tom Wolf assumed office and, on February 13, 2015, issued a reprieve of Williams' death sentence. The operative language of the reprieve stated:

NOW THEREFORE, I, Tom Wolf, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by virtue of the authority invested in me under the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth, do hereby grant a temporary reprieve of the execution unto Terrance Williams until I have received and reviewed the forthcoming report of the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment, and any recommendations contained therein are satisfactorily addressed.

On the same day, Governor Wolf issued a Memorandum, explaining that he granted Williams' reprieve because he believed that "the capital punishment system has significant and widely recognized defects." Governor Wolf's Memorandum dated February 13, 2015, at 1. He indicated that he would "grant a reprieve in each future instance in which an execution is scheduled" until he received and reviewed a report to be drafted by the Task Force, which was established by Senate Resolution 6 of 2011, and until any concerns raised by the Task Force were addressed satisfactorily.² Id. In a press release also issued on February 13, 2015, Governor Wolf described his grant of Williams' reprieve as being the first step in placing a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania.³

Five days later, on February 18, 2015, the District Attorney of Philadelphia (Commonwealth) filed an Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief Under King's Bench Jurisdiction, naming Respondent Williams as the opposing party. Therein, the Commonwealth requested that we invoke either our King's Bench authority or our extraordinary jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 to determine whether Governor Wolf's grant of Williams' reprieve violated Article IV, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.^{4 , 5} It asserted that King's Bench review was warranted because Governor Wolf was attempting to negate a criminal penalty applicable to an entire class of cases, i.e. , first degree murder cases where the death penalty was imposed, based on his personal belief that Pennsylvania's death penalty apparatus is flawed.

The Commonwealth argued that the Pennsylvania Constitution did not permit the Governor to grant the purported reprieve for purposes of establishing a moratorium on the death penalty. It submitted that the reprieve lacked a determinable end date as it was uncertain when the Task Force report would be issued, what its concerns would be, and when the Governor's personal level of satisfaction would be met regarding palliative measures to address those concerns. The Commonwealth emphasized that the reprieve was not issued to allow Williams to pursue an available legal remedy as he had already exhausted his right to direct and collateral review and the Pardon Board had denied him a commutation and pardon. It concluded that Governor Wolf violated the doctrine of separation of powers by seeking to nullify valid, final judgments of sentence. Accordingly, the Commonwealth sought a declaration that the Governor's reprieve was a legal nullity.

Both the Governor and Williams filed responses to the Commonwealth's application.⁶ The Governor requested that we deny the Commonwealth's petition on the ground that the reprieve was issued pursuant to his express constitutional authority in Article IV, Section (9)(a), which, he asserted, contains no restrictions on the duration or purpose of reprieves. Governor Wolf refuted the Commonwealth's suggestion of a separation of powers violation by contending that he was not encroaching upon the judiciary or legislative branch, but rather was exercising a constitutional reprieve power granted exclusively to the executive branch. Alternatively, Governor Wolf requested that the Court order full briefing and schedule oral argument to consider the issue in a more deliberative manner. Williams likewise opposed the Commonwealth's emergency petition on grounds similar to those raised by Governor Wolf. He further emphasized that the reprieve was valid as it was issued in Williams' specific case for the defined purpose of reviewing the Task Force's recommendation regarding the validity of the death penalty.

By order dated March 3, 2015, we granted further review of the Commonwealth's petition, denied the Commonwealth's request for expedited review, and ordered that the Governor be joined as a party. We directed our Prothonotary to establish a briefing schedule and to list the matter for oral argument on the issue of the propriety of this Court's exercise of King's Bench review, as well as the merits of the constitutional challenge to Governor Wolf's reprieve. Oral argument was conducted on September 10, 2015, and the matter is now ready for disposition.

I. Jurisdiction

We must first determine the basis for our jurisdiction. The Commonwealth begins by positing that to avoid deleterious effects that may result from delays attendant to the ordinary process of law, this Court may exercise King's Bench authority to review issues of public importance that require timely intervention by the court of last resort. Brief of the Commonwealth at 21 (citing In re Bruno, 627 Pa. 505, 101 A.3d 635, 670 (2014) ). It requests that we invoke King's Bench power here to entertain the important question of whether Governor Wolf may issue a reprieve that is unlimited in time and is not based on Williams' individual circumstances, but rather is imposed to further the Governor's policy of declaring a moratorium on...