Com. v. Miller, S.
143 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 2009 a jury convicted Strandon Miller of aggravated assault, conspiracy, endangering the welfare of a child, possessing an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person for beating a six‑year‑old; he received an aggregate prison sentence.
- Evidence at trial showed severe belt‑beating injuries; a prior conviction for the fatal beating of a two‑year‑old (different victim) was admitted by stipulation and previously litigated on appeal.
- Miller appealed; the Superior Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance. Miller filed multiple PCRA petitions (pro se and counseled) asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to preserve several issues, including a parental‑discipline (§ 509) defense and sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence claims.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the PCRA petition on December 20, 2016; Miller timely appealed and filed a Rule 1925(b) statement raising a narrow evidentiary/ineffectiveness claim.
- The Superior Court held most claims were waived because they were not presented to the PCRA court or not raised in the Rule 1925(b) statement; it also concluded that preserved claims lacked merit and affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve a sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence claim on direct appeal | Miller: counsel failed to preserve sufficiency challenge, causing prejudice | Commonwealth/PCRA court: claim was not preserved in the Rule 1925(b) statement and/or previously litigated; meritless in any event | Waived for appeal; even if preserved, meritless — evidence sufficient; affirmed |
| Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to advance a parental‑discipline (§ 509) defense | Miller: force used was discipline and thus justified under § 509 | Commonwealth/PCRA court: claim waived by failure to raise in Rule 1925(b); evidence showed force well beyond lawful discipline and alternative remedies existed | Waived; substantively meritless — force was disproportionate to misconduct; no relief |
| Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to object to introduction of certain evidence at trial (e.g., hearsay/"tender years" statements or prior‑act evidence) | Miller: counsel should have objected to admission of the child’s statements and/or prior‑act evidence | Commonwealth/PCRA court: issue was not raised in PCRA petitions or was previously litigated; PCRA ineligibility applies | Waived or previously litigated; no relitigation; PCRA dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (boilerplate allegations of ineffectiveness are insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency review is a question of law; view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 555 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1989) (every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Tullius, 582 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1990) (factors for assessing whether corporal punishment is reasonable under § 509)
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 69 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. 2013) (parental‑discipline defense fails where force and injury are grossly disproportionate)