Com. v. Miller, K.
2650 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- In 1984 Kenneth Miller shot and killed a man; convicted of first‑degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime in 1986 and sentenced to life in 1987.
- Miller’s conviction and initial direct appeals concluded by 1990; he has filed multiple PCRA petitions since 1995, with prior petitions denied as untimely or on the merits.
- In February 2015 Miller filed his fourth PCRA petition alleging (1) a Brady violation and governmental interference because Officer Marvin Pittman failed to disclose confiscation of drugs and observations of Miller’s intoxication before the homicide, and (2) newly discovered evidence permitting a voluntary‑intoxication defense.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely without a hearing; Miller appealed.
- The Superior Court held Miller’s 2015 petition was untimely unless one of the statutory exceptions applied, considered the 60‑day filing requirement after appellate proceedings (including en banc reargument), and concluded Miller failed to demonstrate due diligence or governmental interference; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2015 PCRA petition timely given the 60‑day rule after appellate resolution? | Miller: Petition filed within 60 days of appellate proceedings concluding (denial of en banc reargument), so timely. | PCRA court initially said petition was filed after the 60‑day window. | Held: Timely — appellate review (including reargument) ended Jan 6, 2015, giving Miller until Mar 7, 2015; petition filed Feb 26, 2015. |
| Does Miller plead and prove a governmental‑interference (Brady) exception to the PCRA time‑bar? | Miller: Officer Pittman withheld knowledge that he confiscated drugs and saw Miller intoxicated, which the Commonwealth failed to disclose (Brady), preventing earlier presentation. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Miller failed to show Commonwealth had exclusive control, failed to produce Pittman affidavit, and did not show the Commonwealth knew of withheld evidence. | Held: No — Miller did not plead or prove governmental interference under Section 9545(b)(1). |
| Does the newly‑discovered‑facts exception apply (due diligence requirement)? | Miller: He only learned of Pittman’s alleged admissions in 2014 and filed promptly. | PCRA court: Miller learned of intoxication evidence earlier (by Feb 2012), previously litigated, and failed to exercise due diligence. | Held: No — Miller failed to show due diligence; the intoxication claim was known and previously litigated. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required? | Miller: A hearing is needed to develop Pittman’s testimony about intoxication and confiscation. | PCRA court: No hearing if petition facially untimely or exceptions not established. | Held: No — dismissal without a hearing was appropriate because petitioner failed to establish a timeliness exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA timeliness rules and exceptions explained)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA timeliness requirement is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (60‑day rule and due diligence requirement for timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (pending appellate review tolls filing of subsequent PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (finality and when 60‑day period for PCRA exceptions begins after appellate actions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution's suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)