Com. v. Miller, O., 29 EDA 2017

Background

Omar Miller was convicted by a jury on April 21, 2014 of second-degree murder, robbery, kidnapping, and related conspiracies and sentenced to life without parole on June 23, 2014.
Miller filed a timely direct appeal; this Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal.
On July 7, 2016, Miller filed a timely pro se PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for how counsel litigated a pretrial suppression motion.
PCRA counsel was appointed but filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and petition to withdraw instead of filing an amended petition; the PCRA court granted counsel leave to withdraw and issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss.
After counsel’s withdrawal, Miller requested transcripts (initially October 18, 2016); the court denied the request, later vacated that denial and provided the suppression‑hearing transcript, but refused to provide all trial transcripts before denying his petition on December 7, 2016.
The Superior Court vacated the PCRA court’s dismissal and remanded, holding the court abused its discretion by not providing Miller all transcripts after counsel withdrew, and ordered the court to produce transcripts and allow Miller time to file an amended petition.

Issues

Issue	Miller's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether PCRA court erred in denying Miller's pre‑denial request for all trial transcripts	Miller argued he needed transcripts to amend his PCRA petition pro se and to pursue post‑conviction claims	Commonwealth argued Miller only raised a suppression‑related claim and transcripts would be unnecessary; also no jurisdiction to consider new claims after notice of dismissal	Court held denial of Miller’s October 18, 2016 transcript request (while counsel had withdrawn) was an abuse of discretion; vacated dismissal and remanded for production of transcripts and opportunity to amend
Whether denial of transcripts after notice of appeal prejudiced Miller	Miller argued denial after filing notice of appeal prevented him from presenting new claims	Commonwealth argued once appeal filed PCRA court lacked jurisdiction and transcripts then would not help	Court held no error in denying transcripts after Miller had already filed a notice of appeal (PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider new claims)
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve Miranda/suppression claims (as alleged in PCRA petition)	Miller alleged trial counsel ineffectively litigated suppression, including re‑Miranda issues	Commonwealth contested prejudice and scope	Court declined to rule on the ineffective assistance claim, remanding so Miller can amend petition after receiving transcripts
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge sufficiency and other transcript defects	Miller alleged direct‐appeal counsel failed to raise sufficiency and that transcripts were defectively certified	Commonwealth argued claims not properly before court on remand now	Court declined to reach these issues pending remand and possible amended petition

Key Cases Cited

Ragan v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials: record support and absence of legal error)
Touw v. Commonwealth, 781 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2001) (deference to PCRA court findings)
Friend v. Commonwealth, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2006) (when PCRA counsel seeks withdrawal, petitioner must be informed of right to proceed pro se)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures governing counsel withdrawal and no‑merit letters)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for no‑merit/withdrawal filings by PCRA counsel)