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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

Jeffery1P. 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

- 2 -

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 Super. 1984) (unpublished 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).
J-S03019-16

- 3 -

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 
J-S03019-16

- 4 -

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)
J-S03019-16

- 5 -

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.”
J-S03019-16

- 6 -

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