Com. v. Dukes, E.
3626 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 1990, Earnest N. Dukes (age 22) shot and killed a man during a robbery.
- In 1992 Dukes pled guilty to second-degree murder and received mandatory life imprisonment without parole.
- Dukes filed a PCRA petition in 2016 (his fifth PCRA petition) arguing Miller v. Alabama should apply to him because, despite being 22, his brain was purportedly immature.
- The petition was filed about 23 years after his judgment became final (final in October 1993) and therefore was facially untimely under the PCRA one-year time bar.
- The PCRA court denied the petition without a hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 for lack of jurisdiction, and Dukes appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Miller-based relief is limited to those under 18 at the time of the offense and thus Dukes cannot invoke the Miller/Montgomery timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dukes) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Miller/Montgomery create a new constitutional rule that applies retroactively, so Dukes can invoke the §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception despite being 22 | Miller applies only to offenders <18; Dukes' petition is ~23 years late and does not meet the exception | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction; exception inapplicable |
| Scope of Miller — age applicability | Miller’s rationale (immature brain development) should extend to defendants older than 18 with similar brain immaturity | Miller is limited to juveniles (under 18); extension to older defendants is impermissible | Miller limited to those <18; cannot be expanded to 22‑year‑old offenders |
| Merits / constitutional violation | Dukes contends his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because his brain immaturity makes life without parole unconstitutional for him | Commonwealth: no Miller/Montgomery basis because Dukes was not a juvenile; merits not reached due to timeliness | Merits not reached; constitutional claim fails procedurally because petition is time‑barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (Miller applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. Ct. — Miller cannot be extended to offenders older than 18 for §9545(b)(1)(iii) timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. Ct. — claims seeking extension of Miller to older offenders do not satisfy the newly-recognized-right timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. Ct. — timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Shiloh, 170 A.3d 553 (Pa. Super. Ct. — standard of review for denial of PCRA petition)