Com. v. Dean, J. ( 2016 )

J-S03019-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JEFFERY P. DEAN
Appellant No. 965 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 4, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1009931-1974
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 08, 2016
Jeffery1 P. Dean brings this pro se appeal from the order entered on
March 4, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, that
dismissed as untimely his serial petition seeking relief pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541—9546. The
sole argument presented in this appeal is: “[W]hether the U.S. Supreme
Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama[, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)
(filed June 25, 2012)] applies retroactively in the State of Pennsylvania.”
Dean’s Brief at 4 (unnumbered). Based upon the following, we reverse,
vacate the judgment of sentence, and remand for resentencing.
____________________________________________
1
In the certified record, appellant’s first name appears as both “Jeffery” and
“Jeffrey.”
J-S03019-16
On January 22, 1975, Dean entered a negotiated guilty plea to charges
of murder, generally, robbery, burglary and conspiracy.2 The trial court
fixed the degree of guilt as murder of the first degree.3 Dean was sentenced
to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole on the murder
charge and sentence was suspended on the remaining charges. No direct
appeal was filed. Thereafter, Dean filed a petition pursuant to the Post
Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), which was denied by the PCHA court. On
appeal, this Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.
Commonwealth v. Dean, 481 A.2d 1371 (Pa. Super. 1984) (unpublished
memorandum). On January 17, 1985, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied Dean’s request for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Dean,
658 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1984. Between 2005 and 2009, Dean filed a
number of unsuccessful PCRA petitions.
On August 15, 2011, Dean filed, pro se, the present PCRA petition. On
August 23, 2012, Dean filed an amended petition, seeking relief pursuant to
Miller, supra. In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that it is
unconstitutional for state courts to impose an automatic life sentence
without possibility of parole upon a homicide defendant for a murder
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502, 3701, 3502, and 903, respectively.
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a).
-2-
J-S03019-16
committed while the defendant was a juvenile. The PCRA court dismissed
Dean’s petition, following Rule 907 notice, and this appeal followed.
The PCRA court, in its opinion in support of its ruling, explained that it
denied PCRA relief for two reasons: (1) “[T]o date, the United States
Supreme Court has not issued a ruling declaring that Miller applies
retroactively,” and (2) “Petitioner was over 18 years old at the time of the
murder, which puts him outside the reach of the Supreme Court’s Miller
decision.” PCRA Court Opinion, 3/4/2015, at 2 (unnumbered).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Lane, 81 A.3d 974, 977 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal
denied, 92 A.3d 811 (Pa. 2014). This Court gives great deference to the
findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those
findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007),
appeal denied, 932 A.2d 74 (Pa. 2007). We give no such deference,
however, to the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44
A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012).
We first address the PCRA court’s finding that Dean was over 18 at the
time of the murder, since Miller applies to “those under the age of 18 at
the time of their crimes[.]” 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2460 (emphasis
added). Here, the trial court docket, and other court documents in the
certified record, indicate Dean was born on August 8, 1957, making him 17
-3-
J-S03019-16
years of age at the time of the commission of the September 25, 1974
murder. See e.g., Trial Court Docket; Interview Sheet, 9/27/74; Arrest
Report (green sheet).4 As the record indicates Dean was 17 years old at the
time of the offense, we will proceed to discuss Miller.
On January 25, 2016, while this appeal was pending, the United States
Supreme Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599, 2016
WL 280758 (U.S. 2016), that its decision in Miller applies retroactively.
Shortly after the Montgomery decision, on February 9, 2016, this Court
issued Commonwealth v. Secreti, ___ A.3d ___ [2016 PA Super 28] (Pa.
Super. 2016). There, Secreti was sentenced on January 5, 1996, to
automatic life imprisonment without possibility of parole for committing first
degree murder as a juvenile. On August 15, 2012, within 60 days of the
Miller decision, Secreti filed a PCRA petition, invoking the PCRA’s timeliness
exception for a new retroactive constitutional right, and seeking relief under
Miller. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), (b)(2).5 This Court held that (1)
____________________________________________
4
The Commonwealth notes in its brief:
The PCRA court opinion states that [Dean] “was over 18 years
old at the time of the murder.” … It appears from the docket,
however, that [Dean] was born on August 8, 1957, and he was
arrested for the instant crimes in September of 1974. Thus, he
was presumably seventeen years old at the time of the murder.
Commonwealth’s Brief at 6–7 n.2.
5
Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) provides a timeliness exception where “the right
asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S03019-16
Miller applied retroactively to Secreti’s sentence, and Secreti satisfied the
requirements of Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), (2) Secreti’s sentence was
unconstitutional under Miller, and (3) Secreti was entitled to a new
sentencing hearing in accordance with Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d
286, 296 (Pa. 2013).6
Secreti squarely applies to this case. In 1975, following the entry of a
guilty plea, Dean was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for first
degree murder, and sentence was suspended on the remaining charges.
Dean timely raised his Miller claim in an amended PCRA petition, filed
August 23, 2012, and his appeal from the denial of PCRA relief was pending
before this Court when the United States Supreme Court issued
Montgomery. Guided by Secreti, we conclude (1) Miller applies
retroactively to Dean’s sentence, and Dean has satisfied the PCRA’s
timeliness exception, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), (2) Dean’s sentence is
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time
period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Section 9545(b)(2) provides: “Any petition invoking an exception
provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim
could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
6
In Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286, 296 (Pa. 2013), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated, “Miller requires only that there be
judicial consideration of the appropriate age-related factors set forth in that
decision prior to the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole on a juvenile.”
-5-
J-S03019-16
unconstitutional under Miller, and (3) Dean is entitled to a new sentencing
hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse the PCRA court’s order denying relief to Dean,
we vacate Dean’s judgment of sentence, and we remand to the PCRA court
for resentencing in accordance with Batts, supra.
Order reversed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for
resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/8/2016
-6-