Com. v. Johnson, J. ( 2022 )

J-S34030-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFREY E. JOHNSON :
:
Appellant : No. 292 MDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 28, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-21-CR-0000602-2017
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: MAY 4, 2022
Jeffrey E. Johnson appeals the denial of his second Post Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. He claims the PCRA
court erred by dismissing his petition, which raised claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. We conclude Johnson’s petition was untimely and
affirm.
On October 30, 2017, Johnson pleaded guilty to several crimes
associated with this docket. Before sentencing, on February 2, 2018, Johnson
moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court granted the motion. He
again pleaded guilty, on May 7, 2018, this time to burglary and theft by
unlawful taking.1 See Guilty Plea Colloquy, dated May 7, 2018. The written
guilty plea colloquy form did not list a restitution amount.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(4) and 3921(a), respectively.
J-S34030-21
The day before sentencing, Johnson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty
plea claiming his innocence and that he was coerced into pleading guilty. See
Motion to Withdraw, filed 7/16/18, at ¶ 18. The trial court denied the motion
and following a hearing sentenced Johnson to 18 months to 5 years’
incarceration and ordered restitution for $10,602.35. See Order of Court, filed
7/24/18.
Johnson filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 9, 2018. Counsel filed
a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the court granted. It then appointed
new counsel who filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Notice of Appeal,
filed 8/9/18; Rule 1925(b) Statement, filed 10/12/18.
Johnson subsequently informed this Court and counsel that he wished
to proceed pro se. See Motion to Withdraw, filed 10/29/18. This Court ordered
the trial court to hold a hearing regarding Johnson’s request to proceed pro
se and following the hearing, the court granted Johnson’s request and
permitted counsel to withdraw. See Order, filed 12/17/18.
This Court then permitted Johnson to file an amended Rule 1925(b)
statement where he claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion
to withdraw his plea because “he was innocen[t], prosecutorial misconduct ,
ineffective assistan[ce] of counsel, judicial misconduct.” Amended 1925(b)
Statement, filed 5/30/19, at ¶ 12. He also asserted that the trial court “abused
its discretion in denying [Johnson] a restitution hearing when he objected to
it at sentencing.” Id. at ¶ 14. However, Johnson withdrew his direct appeal
-2-
J-S34030-21
on June 28, 2019. See Order of Court, filed 7/1/19; Notice of Discontinuance
Action, dated 6/28/19.
Johnson filed his first pro se PCRA petition on October 21, 2019, arguing
that his plea was invalid because he was not told that restitution would be
part of the plea agreement and that counsel was ineffective for failing to object
to the imposition of restitution. See PCRA Petition, filed 10/21/19, at ¶ 54.
The court appointed Allen Welch, Esquire and directed counsel to file an
amended PCRA petition. See In Re: PCRA Petition Order, filed 10/24/19.
Counsel did not file an amended PCRA petition. However, Johnson filed a pro
se amended petition on January 8, 2020, claiming trial counsel coerced him
to plead guilty and asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Pro Se
Amended PCRA Petition, filed 1/8/20, at 4. The court held a hearing where
Attorney Welch represented Johnson. See N.T., PCRA Hearing, 1/17/20. It
heard testimony from Johnson and his prior attorneys. The court subsequently
denied the petition. See Order, filed 4/2/20.
Johnson filed two untimely pro se notices of appeal from the order
denying relief, one dated May 11 and another dated May 27. See Pro Se Notice
of Appeal, filed 5/11/20; Pro Se Notice of Appeal, filed 5/27/20. Johnson
withdrew one of the appeals. See Notice of Discontinuance of Action, dated
7/1/20; Order of Court, filed 7/6/20. Attorney Welch, as counsel of record,
requested that the second appeal be withdrawn, and the discontinuance was
granted. See Order of Court, filed 7/16/20. Both withdrawals read that the
appeal being withdrawn was from the “PCRA order entered 4/02/2020.”
-3-
J-S34030-21
Johnson filed the instant untimely PCRA petition, on July 7, 2020, again
acting pro se, though still counseled by Attorney Welch. See PCRA Petition,
filed 7/7/20.2 He claimed both trial counsel and Attorney Welch were
ineffective. Id. at 2, 7. He argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to object to the imposition of restitution as part of his sentence when
restitution was not part of his guilty plea. See Brief in Support of PCRA Relief,
filed 9/14/20, at 4. He also claimed that Attorney Welch was ineffective for
failing to file a timely notice of appeal from the court’s denial of his first PCRA
petition.
Johnson’s petition addressed the timeliness of the petition and claimed
the newly discovered fact time-bar exception. See PCRA Petition, at 3, ¶ 14.
He argued that “the discovery of counsel’s abandonment satisfie[d] the newly
discovered fact exception[.]” Id. at ¶ 19. He alleged that counsel abandoned
him by failing to file a timely notice of appeal from the PCRA court’s denial of
his first PCRA petition and that he discovered this fact when the Prothonotary’s
Office supplied him with a copy of the docket entries, on May 29, 2020. He
also requested that his appellate rights be reinstated as to his first PCRA
petition. Id. at 7. However, Johnson did not allege that he asked counsel to
2 The PCRA petition has two dates written in by Johnson, June 28, 2020, and
June 30, 2020. The record does not contain an envelope with a postmark or
other proof of mailing. See Commonwealth v. DiClaudio, 210 A.3d 1070,
1074 (Pa.Super. 2019) (prisoner mailbox rule provides that the filing date of
a document by a pro se prisoner will be “deemed filed on the date he delivers
it to prison authorities for mailing”) (citation omitted). However, even if we
assume it was mailed on June 30, 2020, the latest date contained on the
document, the petition would still be untimely.
-4-
J-S34030-21
file an appeal. Subsequently, Johnson filed a request to remove Attorney
Welch and to proceed pro se. See Request for Withdrawal of Counsel/Grazier
Hearing, filed 7/23/20.3 In the motion, he claimed irreconcilable differences
with counsel. Id.Later, on August 11, 2020, Attorney Welch filed a Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel. He stated that, although counseled, Johnson filed his own notice
of appeal from the denial of his first PCRA petition. Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel, filed 8/11/20, at ¶ 5. He also stated that shortly after the appeal, the
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court contacted him regarding complaints
of ineffective assistance of counsel received from Johnson. Id. at ¶ 6. Counsel
contacted Johnson to inform him that he would be filing a motion to withdraw
as counsel. Counsel also stated that he received notice from this Court that
Johnson withdrew his appeal. Counsel then stated, “Feeling that the
withdrawal of the appeal, which Johnson sought, was a more expeditious way
to resolve the matter, undersigned counsel prepared a motion to withdraw
under his signature and submitted it.” Id. at ¶ 9.
The PCRA court held a Grazier hearing and granted Johnson’s request
to proceed pro se and permitted counsel to withdraw. Order of Court, filed
8/19/20.
At a hearing on the petition, the court heard testimony from Attorney
Welch and Johnson. Counsel testified that he did not file a notice of appeal
from the denial of Johnson’s first PCRA because he believed that the one issue
3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-5-
J-S34030-21
that had merit, his Recidivist Risk Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”) eligibility, had
become moot.4 N.T., PCRA Hearing, 10/8/20, at 5. He explained that Johnson
“had already served a sentence in excess of the maximum – or of the minimum
sentence without the RRRI application.” Id. He testified that it had become a
moot issue and therefore “it wouldn’t change one day in the amount of time
that he is sitting in prison on these charges[.]” Id. at 6. Counsel testified that
he explained this to Johnson in the letters he sent to the Disciplinary Board
after Johnson filed his complaint against counsel. Id. at 5. He also testified
that he did not remember if he explained this to Johnson at the time that he
initially raised the issue. Id. at 6. Counsel testified that he told Johnson that
“if I found law to support your position that you should have been granted
RRRI status, I would in fact, file a brief in support of that.” Id. at 12.
Counsel also testified that at the time Johnson filed his notice of appeal
“Johnson wanted me to withdraw as counsel.” Id. at 8. Based on this request,
he testified that he believed that it was better to withdraw the appeal than to
go through the process of withdrawing as counsel. Id. at 9. He testified that
by withdrawing the appeal, he believed that his duties as counsel would have
ceased. Id.
During cross-examination, Johnson did not ask counsel whether he told
Johnson that he was going to file a notice of appeal from the denial of the first
PCRA petition or whether Johnson asked him to do so. There also was no
discussion regarding the timeliness of the petition.
4 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4504.
-6-
J-S34030-21
Later in December, Johnson also filed a petition to amend his PCRA
petition and alleged, among other things, that after the court denied his first
PCRA petition, “PCRA counsel stated that he would file [an] appeal on
[Johnson’s] behalf but failed to do so[.]” Petition for Amend Post Conviction
Relief PCRA Petition and Memorandum of Law In Support of Relief, filed
12/23/20, at 24 (unpaginated).
In its opinion, the court did not address the timeliness of the petition
and instead addressed the merits of Johnson’s claims. The opinion also did not
address Johnson’s allegation of ineffectiveness regarding Attorney Welch’s
failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The court concluded that "[Johnson] is
attempting to collaterally attack his own decision to withdraw his earlier
appeals, and his second PCRA petition should be denied on this basis alone.”
PCRA Ct. Op., filed 1/28/21, at 6. The court denied the petition and did not
reinstate Johnson’s appellate rights.5 See Order of Court, filed 1/28/21. This
timely appeal followed.
The court ordered Johnson to file a Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal, and after obtaining two extensions, he filed one that
listed ten issues and included an argument section after issue I. and what
5Johnson maintains that the PCRA court granted his request for reinstatement
of his appellate rights for his first PCRA petition. See Johnson’s Br. at 14.
However, this is a misstatement of the record. In its opinion, the PCRA court
quoted the heading of Johnson’s issue which alleged that his appellate rights
be reinstated. However, the court did not reinstate Johnson’s appellate rights
and in fact denied the petition. See PCRA Ct. Op., filed 1/28/21 at 2, 11.
-7-
J-S34030-21
appears to be portions of his amended petition after issue X. Johnson’s brief
to this Court asserts two issues:
I. Whether the PCRA court erred when it determined that
guilty plea and PCRA counsel were effective and
[Johnson’s] plea was voluntary and intelligently entered
when the record holds that, the contractual agreement is
not being enforced and therefore, invalidates the terms of
the agreement and [Johnson] was not apprised of the fact
that restitution was part of the plea agreement as such is
not contained in the written colloquy nor was such orally
explained or made part of the record when the court
conducted an-on-the-record colloquy?
II. Whether the PCRA court erred when it determined that
guilty plea and PCRA counsel were effective and
[Johnson’s] plea was voluntary and intelligently entered
when the record holds that, [Johnson’s] plea fails to
satisfy the essential requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 and
the product of the plea was based upon coercion?
Johnson’s Br. at 3 (suggested answers omitted).
We review the grant or denial of PCRA relief by determining “whether
the PCRA court's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations
omitted). The PCRA is jurisdictional in nature, thus where a petition is untimely
“this Court has no jurisdiction over the petition” unless a time-bar exception
applies. Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1124 (Pa. 2005). A
petition is timely when it has been filed within one year of the judgment of
sentence becoming final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence
becomes final “at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary
review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of
-8-
J-S34030-21
Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking review.” Id. at §
9545(b)(3). However, when a petitioner has withdrawn their direct appeal,
the judgment of sentence becomes final on the date of withdrawal. See
Commonwealth v. DiVentura, 734 A.2d 397, 399 (Pa.Super. 1999)
(identifying that petitioner's “judgment of sentence became final . . . when
he withdrew his direct appeal”).
To overcome the time-bar, a petitioner must plead and prove at least
one of the time-bar exceptions:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
interference by government officials with the presentation
of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United
States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petitioner and could not have been
ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period
provided in this section and has been held by that court to
apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). The exception must be raised within one
year of the date that the claim could have been presented. Id. at §
9545(b)(2). We may not address the merits of an untimely PCRA petition
where the petitioner has failed to satisfy at least one of the time-bar
exceptions. See Commonwealth v. Whiteman, 204 A.3d 448, 450
(Pa.Super. 2019).
-9-
J-S34030-21
Here, Johnson withdrew his direct appeal on June 28, 2019, and had
until June 29, 2020,6 to file a timely PCRA petition. The instant PCRA petition
is untimely because it was not filed until July 7, 2020. Johnson raised the
newly discovered fact time-bar exception. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
To satisfy the newly discovered fact exception, Johnson must plead and prove
"'that there were ‘facts’ that were ‘unknown to him’ and that he could not have
ascertained those facts by the exercise of ‘due diligence[.]’” Commonwealth
v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “[D]ue
diligence requires neither perfect vigilance nor punctilious care, but rather it
requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular
circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for collateral relief.”
Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1071 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en
banc).
Here, Johnson claimed that counsel told him that he would file a notice
of appeal from the denial of the petition. He alleged that he learned of
counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal on May 29, 2020, when he received
his docket from the Prothonotary’s Office. At the PCRA hearing Johnson did
not question Attorney Welch on whether he agreed to file an appeal on his
behalf or if Johnson requested him to file an appeal. Furthermore, if it is true,
as Johnson claims, that he did not become aware that an appeal had not been
filed until May 29, that does not explain why he filed two notices of appeal
6 June 28, 2020, fell on a Sunday. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (stating
computation of time excludes legal holidays and weekends).
- 10 -
J-S34030-21
before that date, on May 11 and May 27. Most importantly, even assuming he
did not discover the failure to appeal until May 29, Johnson has never
explained why he did not file the subject PCRA petition before the one-year
deadline, or indeed until July 7, 2020. He has therefore failed to establish due
diligence. We affirm the order of the court denying his petition because the
petition is untimely, and Johnson has failed to satisfy any time-bar exception.7
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 05/04/2022
7 See Commonwealth v. Clouser, 998 A.2d 656, 661 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2010)
(stating this Court may affirm an order on any basis supported by the record).
- 11 -