Com. v. Milton, C.
Com. v. Milton, C. No. 531 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Cleatus T. Milton was convicted in 2007 of multiple sexual offenses against his then-10‑year‑old daughter and sentenced to an aggregate 47½ to 95 years’ imprisonment.
- Milton’s direct appeal was resolved in 2009; his judgment of sentence became final June 28, 2009.
- He filed a timely first PCRA petition in 2009, which was denied; this Court affirmed in 2011 and the Supreme Court denied allowance in 2012.
- Milton filed a second PCRA petition in March 2016 asserting his sentence is illegal under Alleyne and Montgomery (and related progeny), and also raised Brady/governmental‑interference type claims about confronting witnesses.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) and found no pleaded/proved exception to the one‑year time bar; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Milton's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second PCRA petition | Alleyne/Montgomery create a new constitutional rule qualifying as a §9545(b)(1)(iii) exception | Petition filed well after the one‑year period and Milton did not plead/prove a timely exception | Petition untimely; no applicable exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Alleyne claim (mandatory minimums) | Alleyne renders mandatory minimum statutes unconstitutional and impacts his sentence | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review per Washington; Milton’s judgment became final before Alleyne | Alleyne does not afford relief; claim fails as not retroactive |
| Montgomery/Miller claim (retroactivity of Miller) | Montgomery requires retroactive application of Miller; thus his sentence is illegal | Miller/Montgomery apply only to juvenile offenders; Milton was over 18 when offenses occurred | Miller/Montgomery inapplicable to Milton; not a basis for relief |
| Brady/governmental‑interference/confrontation claim | Trial court prevented confrontation of daughter’s physicians; this shows governmental interference/Brady violation | Milton knew (or could have known) of these issues at trial; claim was not timely raised and is waived | Claim waived for failure to raise earlier; not a viable exception to time‑bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Alleyne invalidates certain non‑prior‑conviction mandatory minimums under jury‑finding rule)
- Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Montgomery decision date controls 60‑day filing computation)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Miller not applicable to offenders over 18)
- Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Miller limited to defendants under 18 at time of offense)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (Brady claims waived if not raised earlier when materials available)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (Brady claims deemed waived if not raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely PCRA petitions must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2008) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove statutory exception to PCRA time‑bar)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)