Com. v. Trice, C. ( 2018 )

J-S78002-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CEASAR TRICE :
:
Appellant : No. 1465 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 25, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0018839-2006
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 04, 2018
Appellant, Ceasar Trice, appeals from the order entered on August 25,
2016, dismissing, as untimely, his second petition filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. A jury convicted Appellant of third-degree murder, criminal
trespass, and two counts of aggravated assault in a 2006 home invasion,
arising from a dispute involving narcotic sales, which ended with the
shooting death of a victim and injuries to two other individuals. On October
16, 2008, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 32 to
64 years of imprisonment. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on
July 8, 2011. From our review of the record, Appellant did not appeal that
determination to our Supreme Court.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S78002-17
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on June 11, 2012. The PCRA
court appointed counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition on December
6, 2013. On July 28, 2014, following an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court
dismissed the amended PCRA petition. We affirmed the denial of relief in an
unpublished memorandum on November 2, 2015. Appellant appealed. On
March 22, 2016, our Supreme Court denied further review.
On March 20, 2016, Appellant filed a second, pro se PCRA petition.
On July 22, 2016, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the
petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant
responded pro se on August 4, 2016. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s
PCRA petition as untimely on August 25, 2016. This pro se appeal followed
wherein Appellant raises four issues challenging the effectiveness of trial
counsel and PCRA counsel representing him on his first PCRA petition. See
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5
Here, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s most recent PCRA petition
for lack of jurisdiction, because Appellant filed it more than one year after
his judgment of sentence became final and Appellant did not allege any of
the three exceptions to the PCRA’s time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545. This
Court agrees that the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction, albeit upon a different
legal theory. See Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414, 423 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (“We can affirm the trial court's decision if there is any basis to
support it.”). Our Supreme Court has determined “that a PCRA trial court
cannot entertain a new PCRA petition when a prior petition is still under
-2-
J-S78002-17
review on appeal[.]” Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4, 14 (Pa. 2012),
citing Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000)(“Appellant
could not have filed his second PCRA petition in the court of common pleas
while his first PCRA petition was still pending before this [C]ourt. The trial
court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate issues directly related to this case;
only this [C]ourt did. A second appeal cannot be taken when another
proceeding of the same type is already pending...”).
In this case, Appellant filed his second PCRA petition on March 20,
2016; however, our Supreme Court did not deny relief on Appellant’s first
PCRA petition until March 22, 2016. Thus, because Appellant’s appeal on his
first PCRA petition was still pending at the time he filed the current PCRA
petition, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits of
Appellant’s instant claims.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/4/2018
-3-