Com. v. Ellis, D., Com. v. Ellis, D. No. 2025 EDA 2016

Background

Appellant Dameon Ellis was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and related offenses for a December 2, 1998 shooting; he received life imprisonment for murder and additional terms for other offenses.
Direct appeal affirmed; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2002, and the judgment became final on October 14, 2002 (expiration of time to seek U.S. Supreme Court review).
Ellis filed multiple PCRA petitions; the present filing (his third) was submitted pro se on August 20, 2015.
The trial court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2015 PCRA petition as untimely on June 1, 2016.
On appeal, Ellis argued he qualified for the PCRA timeliness exception based on Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana (claiming a new constitutional rule), and also referenced Alleyne; he also argued broader neurodevelopmental grounds extending juvenile protections to those under 25.
The Superior Court found the petition patently untimely, held Ellis waived reliance on Miller/Montgomery because he did not raise them in the petition, and rejected any extension of Miller to defendants older than 18 (including 19-year-old Ellis); Alleyne and other legality-of-sentence claims provided no relief because of untimeliness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2015 PCRA petition is timely or fits a statutory timeliness exception	Ellis claimed a "new constitutional right" under Miller/Montgomery (and generally cited developmental science) to overcome the PCRA time-bar	Commonwealth argued the petition is patently untimely and Ellis did not plead any time‑bar exception in the petition; Miller/Montgomery do not apply to a 19‑year‑old	Petition is untimely; Ellis waived Miller/Montgomery by not raising them below and is not entitled to relief because he was 19 at the time of the offense
Whether Miller/Montgomery apply retroactively to Ellis	Ellis relied on Miller and Montgomery to assert a new constitutional rule that would excuse untimeliness	Commonwealth noted Miller applies only to defendants under 18 and Montgomery’s retroactivity does not help someone who was 19	Miller/Montgomery do not apply; Ellis was 19, so no relief
Whether Miller’s reasoning should be extended to defendants under 25 based on brain development	Ellis urged extension of juvenile protections to persons under 25 as "technical juveniles"	Commonwealth opposed expansion; prior Superior Court precedent rejected such extension	Court rejected extension; precedent (Furgess) forecloses treating 19‑year‑olds as juveniles for Miller relief
Whether Alleyne or other legality challenges salvage untimely claims	Ellis invoked Alleyne and other legality-of-sentence arguments	Commonwealth pointed to precedent that Alleyne is not retroactively applicable to collateral attacks where the judgment became final before Alleyne and that Alleyne does not affect life sentences for first-degree murder	Alleyne provides no relief; legality claims are unreviewable due to untimeliness

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Ellis, 797 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. 2002) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentence)
Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (rejecting extension of Miller relief to 19‑year‑olds; timeliness/exceptions must be pled in PCRA petition)
Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality‑of‑sentence claims under PCRA must satisfy time limits or an exception)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not warrant retroactive application to collateral attacks when judgment was final before Alleyne)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (holding mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (holding Miller announces a substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)