J-S03020-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JONOTHAN EDWARD PRATHER

Appellant No. 734 WDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order dated April 19, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-53-CR-0000004-2012

BEFORE: OLSON, J., SOLANO, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2017

Appellant, Jonothan Edward Prather, appeals pro se from the order 

dismissing his second petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief 

Act. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.

On February 22, 2012, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of firstdegree murder for the June 2011 shooting death of Samuel Miller.1

 

Appellant, who was born on September 3, 1991, was 19 years old at the 

time of the murder. On March 26, 2012, the trial court sentenced Appellant 

to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant did not file a 

direct appeal.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant shot Mr. Miller sometime between the late evening of June 4 and 

early morning of June 5, 2011. Complaint, 6/13/11.
J-S03020-17

- 2 -

On June 25, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition in which he 

cited Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), and claimed to have an 

“immature brain.”2 PCRA Petition, 6/25/14, at 1-3. The Commonwealth 

filed an answer and motion for dismissal on July 1, 2014. The trial court 

appointed counsel to represent Appellant on July 3, 2014, and scheduled a 

pre-hearing conference. The conference was postponed three times at the 

request of Appellant’s attorney, and once at the request of the 

Commonwealth. It appears from the record that the pre-hearing conference 

occurred on February 5, 2015.3 On February 11, 2015, the court issued a 

Rule 907 notice of its intention to dismiss the petition without a hearing, 

stating that it did not have jurisdiction because the petition was untimely 

and Appellant’s claim under Miller v. Alabama was “inapplicable.” The 

court dismissed the petition on March 3, 2015. The order specifically 

advised Appellant that “he has an absolute right to appeal this decision . . . 

within thirty (30) days from today’s date, today being March 3, 2015.” 

Appellant did not file an appeal. Approximately one year later, on March 24, 

____________________________________________

2 Miller v. Alabama held that sentences of mandatory life imprisonment 

without parole imposed upon juveniles who were under the age of 18 at the 

time they committed murder were unconstitutional. Appellant contends that 

although his chronological age was 19 years, his brain at the time of his 

crime was still immature, so that he should be treated as though he was a 

juvenile. 

3 The docket entries indicate that on December 4, 2015, the conference was 

scheduled for February 5, 2015. 
J-S03020-17

- 3 -

2016, Appellant filed the pro se PCRA petition before us, again seeking relief 

under Miller v. Alabama. The PCRA court issued notice of its intention to 

dismiss the petition pursuant to Rule 907 on March 28, 2016, and reiterated 

the inapplicability of Miller v. Alabama. It dismissed the petition on April 

19, 2016. Appellant filed this timely appeal.

In his brief, Appellant raises three issues:

1. Since the Appellant was an adolescent at the time of the 

alleged murder, the automatic mandatory life sentence 

without the possibility of parole that he was given without a 

mitigating hearing, is unconstitutional and void ab initio, and 

is subjecting the Appellant to cruel and unusual punishment 

and violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

2. Not applying the decisions in Miller v. Alabama and 

Montgomery v. Louisiana to the Appellant violates the 

Appellant’s equal protection rights.

3. Sentencing the Appellant to an automatic mandatory life 

sentence without the possibility of parole, without a 

mitigating hearing that takes into account the Appellant’s age 

and other contributing factors violates the Appellant’s due 

process rights.

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (excess capitalization removed).4

____________________________________________

4 Appellant has filed a supplemental brief in which he argues that trial 

counsel was “ineffective for coercing a guilty plea based on threats of the 

death penalty.” Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at 4. This issue is waived 

because Appellant failed to raise it in his petition, let alone explain how it 

falls within the PCRA’s time restrictions. See Commonwealth v. Furgess, 

149 A.3d 90, 93 (Pa. Super. 2016) (asserted exceptions to the time 

restrictions for a PCRA petition must be included in the petition and may not 

be raised for the first time on appeal).
J-S03020-17

- 4 -

Appellant is due no relief, for two reasons. First, the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider his petition because it was untimely. Generally, a 

PCRA petition must be filed no later than one year after the underlying 

judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant’s proceedings 

ended in 2012, but he did not file his petition until 2016, and no exception to 

the PCRA’s filing deadline applies here. 

Second, Appellant’s three issues encompass his single claim that he is 

entitled to relief under Miller v. Alabama, which is duplicative of the claim 

he raised in his PCRA petition filed on June 25, 2014. Although Appellant 

concedes he was 19 years old at the time of the murder, he avers that his 

concession that he was older than the age required to invoke Miller is “of no 

merit” under the Fourteenth Amendment because “a child’s biological 

process is not typically complete until he or she reaches his or her midtwenties.” Appellant’s Brief at 11. We agree with the PCRA court that

Appellant’s argument lacks merit because Miller does not apply to 

individuals who were 18 or older at the time they committed murder. See 

Furgess, 149 A.3d at 90 (holding that Miller did not apply to a 19-year-old 

appellant convicted of homicide where appellant claimed he was a “technical 

juvenile” and referenced immature brain development to support his claim). 

Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Appellant’s second PCRA 

petition.

Order affirmed.
J-S03020-17

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/13/2017