J

- S66004

- 19

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEATLH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

DAMEON BROME

Appellant No. 21 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 20 , 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: 1102962

- 1987

BEFORE: STABILE, NICHOLS, JJ., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2020

Appellant, Dameon Brome, appeals from the December 20, 2018 order

dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 46. We affirm.

The PCRA court’s opinion recites the relevant procedural history:

On September 29, 1987, then

- juvenile petitioner Dameon Brome was arrested and charged with murder and related offenses. On December 13, 1988, after a jury convicted the petitioner of first

- degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”), the Honorable George J. Ivins imposed the then

- mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for first

- degree murder, and concurrent sentences [of] two to four years of imprisonment for conspiracy and one to two years of imprisonment for PIC, for a total sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
On June 30, 2010, the petitioner filed a [PCRA] petition. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States issued its holding in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which rendered all mandatory life imprisonment without parole sentences for juveniles unconstitutional. On July 24, 2012, theJ

- S66004

- 19

- 2

-

petitioner filed an amended petition alleging that his l ife im prisonment sentences [was] illegal under Miller . On January 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its holding in Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), which held that the Miller decision applies retroactively.
On August 29, 2017, this Court granted PCRA relief and vacated the petitioner’s life imprisonment without parole sentence. On that same date, this court imposed a negotiated resentence of thirty years to life imprisonment for first

- degree murder, and no further pen alty on the remaining charges. On August 30, 2017, the petitioner filed a post

- sentence motion for modification of sentence, which [the] court denied on August 31, 2017. The petitioner did not file a notice of appeal.
On June 29, 2018, the petitioner f iled a pro se PCRA petition, his first since resentencing. On October 17, 2018, appointed PCRA counsel filed an amended petition. On November 8, 2018, after a Grazier [ 1 ] hearing, this court issued a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 90 7. The petitioner did not respond to this court’s 907 notice.
PCRA Court Opinion, 12/20/18, at 1

- 2 (some capitalization omitted).

Appellant’s Octo ber 17, 2018 petition challenged only the

constitutionality of the mandatory maximum term under 18 Pa.C.S .A.

§ 1102.1. 2 Amended PCRA Petition, 10/17/18, at ¶ 10. Appellant wished to

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).

2 Section 1102.1 reads in relevant part as follows:

(a) First degree murder.

-- A person who has been convicted after June 24, 2012, of a murder of the first degree, first degree murder of an unborn child or murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree and who was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the off ense shall be sentenced as follows:J

- S66004

- 19

- 3

-

raise additional issues his appointed counsel believed to be without merit.

N.T. Grazier Hearing, 11/8/18, at 7

- 8 . Thus, Appellant chose to waive his

statutory right to counse l and proceed pro se. The PCRA court notified

Appellant that he needed to raise his additional issues before the PCRA court,

but Appellant never did so. Nonetheless, he purports to raise fifteen

assertions of error in this timely appeal. The only issue he preserved before

the PCRA court is the constitutionality of § 1102.1, as he cannot raise the

other issues for the first time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

As to his sole preserved issue, 3 the Commonwealth notes its agreement.

That is, the Commonwealt h believes the mandatory maximum term in

§ 1102 .1 is unconstitutional. The Commonwealth also acknowledges that

several binding opinions from this Court have already rejected that argument.

Commonwealth v. Blount , 207 A.2d 925, 938 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“As for

Appellant’s claim a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment is

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ (1) A person who at the time of the commission of the offense was 15 years of age or older shall be sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole, or a term of imprisonment, the minimum of which shall be at lea st 35 years to life.
(2) A person who at the time of the commission of the offense was under 15 years of age shall be sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole, or a term of imprisonment, the minimum of which shall be at least 25 years to lif e.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1 (a).

3 We review the PCRA court’s order for error of law and record support for its findings of fact. Commonwealth v. Williams , 828 A.2d 981, 987 (Pa. 2003).J

- S66004

- 19

- 4

-

unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders convicted of murder prior to

Miller and violates the mandated of individualized sentencing, this Court has

repeatedly rejected these claims.”) ( appeal denied , 218 A.3d 1198 (Pa.

2019) ) . Because binding precedent dictates that Appellant’s only preserved

issue does not merit relief , we disce rn no error in the PCRA court’s order . We

are bound to follow Blount and other similar decisions unless and until a

higher court decides otherwise.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/20