Com. v. Miller, C.
Com. v. Miller, C. No. 592 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 17, 2017Background
- In 1990 Miller was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy; sentenced to life in 1991; direct review concluded in 1993.
- Miller filed a first PCRA petition in 1997; relief was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- On August 17, 2015 Miller filed a pro se PCRA petition (styled also as a habeas petition) claiming his sentence was illegal, invoking Alleyne v. United States.
- PCRA counsel was appointed, then filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw noting Miller’s Alleyne claim; the court granted withdrawal and issued Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss.
- The PCRA court dismissed Miller’s 2015 petition as untimely on March 18, 2016; Miller timely appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 and that Alleyne did not supply a retroactivity exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller may obtain habeas relief instead of PCRA process for an illegal‑sentence claim | Miller contends habeas corpus is appropriate because his sentence is illegal and no adequate remedy of law exists | The Commonwealth asserts the PCRA is the exclusive remedy for claims cognizable under the PCRA and subsumes habeas corpus | Court held the PCRA is the exclusive remedy; Miller cannot bypass the PCRA by labeling his filing a habeas petition |
| Whether Miller's PCRA petition is timely or falls within a statutory exception | Miller argues his claim is non‑waivable and invokes Alleyne as announcing a new constitutional right that should apply to his case | Commonwealth argues Miller’s petition is untimely (final judgment 1994) and no applicable §9545(b)(1) exception applies; Alleyne has not been held retroactive | Court held the petition was untimely (filed ~24 years after finality) and Miller failed to plead a valid timeliness exception; Alleyne does not provide retroactive relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing retroactivity of Alleyne and PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is the sole means of post‑conviction relief for claims cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Barrett, 761 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discussing grace period for PCRA amendments and first petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to develop argument on appeal waives issue)