J-S82045-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DANIEL SCOTT PETRICHKO,
Appellant No. 837 MDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 4, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-54-CR-0000803-1996
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2016
Appellant, Daniel Scott Petrichko, appeals pro se from the denial of his
third serial petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546 (PCRA), as untimely. Appellant argues that his
sentence of life without parole for murder of the first degree is
unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applied
retroactively under Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), as
revised (Jan. 27, 2016). We affirm.
Appellant was twenty years old at the time he committed the murder.
He argues, in effect, that Miller should be applied to him as an “emerging
adult[ ] who struggle[s] with the same problems as those under the age of
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S82045-16
[eighteen].” (Appellant’s Brief, at x).1 We note that Appellant has
previously litigated his Miller claim. (See Commonwealth v. Petrichko,
No. 1901 MDA 2012, 2013 WL 11254771, at *5 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 4,
2013) (unpublished memorandum)).
On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of
review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are
supported by the record and without legal error. Our review of questions of
law is de novo. See Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa.
2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 639 (2013). To prove this exception to the
PCRA time-bar, Appellant had to assert a constitutional right, recognized by
the United States Supreme Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and
held by that court to apply retroactively. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Miller applies only to juveniles under the age of eighteen. See Miller,
supra at 2460. The issue of where to draw the line has already been
addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, 543
U.S. 551, 574 (2005). The PCRA court properly determined that no
statutory exception to the time-bar applied. Lacking jurisdiction, the court
correctly declined to review the merits of Appellant’s issues.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s non-compliant and erratically paginated brief does not include a
statement of questions involved.
-2-
J-S82045-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/8/2016
-3-
Com. v. Petrichko, D.
Combined Opinion