Commonwealth v. Miller
102 A.3d 988
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Eugene Miller was convicted by jury of third-degree murder and related offenses in 2005 and sentenced to an aggregate term including a 25-year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(2) based on prior New Jersey convictions.
- Miller’s direct appeal was affirmed by this Court in 2007 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2008; his judgment became final on August 6, 2008.
- Miller filed a first PCRA petition in 2009 which was dismissed; that dismissal was affirmed in 2012.
- Miller filed a second PCRA petition on August 8, 2013 invoking the Alleyne decision as a newly recognized constitutional right and arguing retroactive application; the PCRA court found the petition untimely and dismissed it under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.
- The PCRA court concluded Miller did not satisfy the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception because neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held Alleyne retroactive; this Court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne announced a new constitutional right that makes Miller’s untimely PCRA petition timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) | Miller: Alleyne (decided June 17, 2013) is a new rule and applies retroactively, and his petition was filed within 60 days | Commonwealth: Alleyne has not been held retroactive by the U.S. or Pa. Supreme Court, so § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception not met | Court: Petition untimely; Alleyne not established as retroactive by the requisite courts, so time-bar exception fails; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the Alleyne challenge to Miller’s mandatory minimum sentence (based on prior convictions) renders his sentence illegal and reviewable despite untimeliness | Miller: Alleyne affects mandatory minimums and thus his sentence legality | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not disturb Almendarez-Torres exception for prior convictions; sentence increase was based on prior convictions, not an Alleyne violation | Court: Even if timely, Alleyne does not invalidate sentencing based on prior convictions under Almendarez-Torres; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (mandatory-minimum–triggering facts must be found by a jury)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (prior-conviction exception to jury-finding requirement)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 943 A.2d 318 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prior direct-appeal decision affirming convictions and sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Seskey, 86 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§ 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires that the announcing court have held the rule retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2011) (new constitutional rule applies retroactively on collateral review only if the issuing court has held it retroactive)