Com. v. Priest, M., Com. v. Priest, M. No. 905 WDA 2016

In July 2009 Markez Priest (born Dec. 30, 1988) was accused of shooting and killing Darius Odom; eyewitnesses and the victim identified "Markez" at the hospital video before Odom died.
A jury convicted Priest of first‑degree murder and a firearms offense in April 2010; he received life imprisonment (plus concurrent 2–4 years on the gun count). The Superior Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
Priest filed multiple PCRA petitions (2011, then 2014 amended) raising claims including Miller/Alleyne-based sentencing challenges and several ineffective‑assistance claims (failure to present DNA, toxicology, ballistics, cell‑phone records, and a newly discovered alibi witness), plus challenges to admission of hospital video and prosecutorial misconduct.
Appointed PCRA counsel filed Turner/Finley “no‑merit” letters; the trial/PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notices and ultimately dismissed the PCRA petition and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
The PCRA court found (1) Miller did not apply because Priest was 20 at the time of the offense; (2) the non‑matching DNA, toxicology, and inconclusive ballistics were not exculpatory or would not have changed the outcome; (3) cell‑tower records were unavailable and even if produced would be limited in probative value; and (4) the hospital video and prosecutorial remarks had been litigated or were reasonable inferences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Priest)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to present DNA/trace evidence (fingernail DNA, hair)	DNA/trace evidence showed another person’s DNA and could exculpate Priest	DNA from another person alone is not exculpatory absent proof of how/when it was deposited; jury credibility determinations dominated the case	Denied — counsel not ineffective; evidence would not likely alter verdict
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to obtain/subpoena cell‑phone records	Cell records would show Priest’s location and support an alibi	Relevant tower records were unavailable or would only identify towers (not precise location); counsel attempted to obtain them	Denied — records unavailable/limited and no prejudice shown
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to present victim’s blood toxicology	BAC of .126% would impeach the victim’s identification	The report also indicated the victim was speaking clearly and had full mental status; video showed the victim naming Priest	Denied — toxicology did not undermine identification and could bolster it
Sentence illegal under Miller (and Alleyne/Valentine)	Miller and brain‑development science make mandatory life sentences for young adults unconstitutional	Miller applies to juveniles; Priest was 20 at offense so Miller does not apply; Alleyne/Valentine concerns mandatory minimum statutes not at issue here	Denied — Miller inapplicable to age 20; Alleyne claims inapplicable

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles requires individualized sentencing consideration)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2011) (direct‑appeal decision affirming admission of hospital video and convictions)
Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (declining to extend Miller relief to defendants 18 or older)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in post‑conviction representation)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley no‑merit withdrawal procedure)