Appeal from the PCRA Order September 12, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County, Criminal Division, at No: CP-34-CR-0000097-1989
BEFORE: BENDER, J., DONOHUE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.[*]
Jeffrey E. Lefevre (Appellant) appeals from the September 12, 2012 order which denied his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On January 24, 1990, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial. That same day, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant was 21 years old at the time of the murder.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which were denied, and a direct appeal, which was reportedly dismissed due to counsel for Appellant failing to file a brief. Appellant filed the instant petition on August 23, 2012. This petition was denied by the PCRA court on September 13, 2012. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following issues to this Court on appeal.
A. Did the PCRA Court err when it denied Appellant's claim that Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), violates state and federal equal protection clauses, as well as art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
B. Did the PCRA Court err when it denied Appellant's claim that Mandatory Life-without-parole terms for individuals over age 17, but below age 25 violates [sic] the Eighth Amendment, art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as art. I § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
C. Did the PCRA Court err when it denied Appellant's claim that it is unconstitutional under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions to sentence Appellant to a mandatory sentence of life-without-parole because it barred consideration of the mitigating qualities of his youth, which would have rendered the sentence a disproportionate punishment.
Appellant's Brief at 5.
Specifically, Appellant contends that the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Miller "should be applied to his sentence by reason of Equal Protection and Pennsylvania Law[;]" that Miller "should be applied to him as a result of logical extrapolation of the precedent of the United States Supreme Court relied upon in making said decision[;]" and, that Miller "and its scientific ...