Com. v. Miller, G.
3536 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 5, 2016Background
- In 1984 Gene W. Miller (age 22) pleaded guilty to murder; the trial court accepted the plea, found first-degree murder, and sentenced him to life without parole on October 30, 1984.
- Miller’s direct appeal was unsuccessful; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur in 1987 and his judgment became final July 3, 1987.
- Over the next two decades Miller filed multiple unsuccessful PCRA petitions; several were dismissed as untimely and those dismissals were affirmed on appeal.
- On September 20, 2013 Miller filed his eighth PCRA petition (and three amended petitions without leave); the PCRA court gave notice of intent to dismiss and then dismissed the petition as untimely on November 2, 2015.
- Miller argued exceptions to the PCRA time-bar based on Alleyne and Miller (and later cited Montgomery), plus claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and court bias; the PCRA court rejected these and the Superior Court affirmed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Miller claimed enumerated exceptions (after-recognized constitutional rights) tolled the one-year/time-bar so his 2013 petition is timely | PCRA contended the petition was untimely; Miller did not satisfy any § 9545(b) exception or the 60-day filing requirement | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Alleyne-based challenge | Alleyne announced a new constitutional rule that should apply retroactively to Miller’s case | Alleyne does not state retroactivity to collateral review; Munday limited Alleyne to direct review at time of decision | Alleyne exception not satisfied; claim fails |
| Miller (juvenile LWOP) challenge | Miller argued Miller v. Alabama entitled him to relief from LWOP sentence | Miller decision applies only to defendants who were under 18 at offense; Miller (appellant) was over 18 | Merits inapplicable; even if timely, claim would fail |
| Other claims (IAC, bias) | Miller raised ineffective assistance and judicial bias | Commonwealth argued these were waived because they could have been raised earlier or on direct appeal | Claims waived under § 9544(b); not considered due to timeliness bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Pennsylvania, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (petitioner must plead PCRA time‑bar exceptions in the petition)
- Baumhammers v. Commonwealth, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (leave required to amend PCRA petitions)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (60‑day filing period for after‑recognized claims begins after resolution of pending review)
- Munday v. Commonwealth, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Alleyne applied to cases on direct review at time of its decision)
- Callahan v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA time limits are not subject to equitable tolling)
- Cintora v. Commonwealth, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (equal protection challenge to Miller’s application rejected)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for offenders under 18 violates Eighth Amendment)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements for jury determination)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review)