Com. v. Milner, W.
Com. v. Milner, W. No. 1062 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- In 1982 Milner was convicted of rape and related offenses and sentenced to 25–50 years; his judgment became final January 20, 1986.
- Milner filed a first PCRA petition in 1997 (denied and remanded; amended petition dismissed in 2008; appeal later quashed as untimely).
- On March 6, 2016 Milner filed a motion treated as a second PCRA petition invoking Alleyne and related U.S. Supreme Court decisions, seeking retroactive relief or nunc pro tunc application.
- Appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on June 24, 2016.
- The PCRA court concluded Milner failed to plead a statutory timeliness exception; Milner did not argue a timeliness exception in his appellate brief.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was untimely and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Milner's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne and related decisions entitle Milner to retroactive relief nunc pro tunc | Alleyne (and Apprendi line) establishes a new constitutional rule that should be applied retroactively to invalidate mandatory aspects of his sentence | The petition is facially untimely; Alleyne does not provide a retroactive timeliness exception here | Court: Petition untimely; Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the state court’s refusal to apply Alleyne created a structural defect | Milner contends refusal to apply federal supremacy and Alleyne caused a structural constitutional defect invalidating proceedings | Commonwealth: No jurisdiction to reach merits because petition untimely; no timely exception pleaded | Court: Did not reach merits; timeliness jurisdictional bar; claim dismissed |
| Whether Milner’s sentence is illegal under Alleyne | Milner argues his sentence is illegal under Alleyne’s rule that fact-finding increasing penalty must be jury-proven | Commonwealth: Even if Alleyne affects sentencing, it is not retroactive to Milner’s final judgment on collateral review | Court: Legality-of-sentence claim is reviewable only if PCRA petition is timely; here untimely so claim not reached |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in denying a hearing and appointing counsel withdrawal | Milner implicitly challenges procedures and counsel’s Turner/Finley filing | Commonwealth: PCRA court followed procedure; no genuine issue of material fact and counsel filed appropriate no-merit letter | Court: No hearing required where record shows no timeliness exception; counsel permitted to withdraw per procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; merits unreachable without timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness is prerequisite to PCRA jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)