Com. v. Grego, M. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-S02032-19
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee              :
    :
    v.                          :
    :
    MICHAEL GREGO                            :
    :
    Appellant             :        No. 2269 EDA 2018
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 2, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000322-2007
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:               FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2019
    Appellant, Michael Grego, appeals from the order entered in the Monroe
    County Court of Common Pleas, which denied as untimely his serial petition
    filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
    9546. On November 14, 2008, a jury convicted Appellant of attempted rape,
    multiple counts of corruption of minors, indecent exposure, open lewdness,
    unlawful contact with a minor, and other related offenses, in connection with
    Appellant’s sexual abuse of three minors. The court sentenced Appellant on
    March 17, 2009, to an aggregate term of 135 to 288 months’ incarceration.
    This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on March 17, 2011.            See
    Commonwealth v. Grego, 
    26 A.3d 1196
    (Pa.Super. 2011). Appellant did
    not pursue further direct review.
    Appellant timely filed his first PCRA petition pro se on June 1, 2011. The
    J-S02032-19
    court appointed counsel on June 7, 2011. Following a hearing on December
    19, 2011, the court denied relief on February 24, 2012. This Court affirmed
    the denial of PCRA relief on November 1, 2012, and our Supreme Court denied
    allowance of appeal on July 2, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Grego, 
    63 A.3d 818
    (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 
    620 Pa. 720
    , 
    69 A.3d 600
    (2013).
    On December 11, 2017, Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA petition.
    The court appointed counsel on December 14, 2017. Following a hearing on
    March 27, 2018, the court denied PCRA relief on July 2, 2018. Appellant timely
    filed a notice of appeal on July 29, 2018. On July 31, 2018, the court ordered
    Appellant to file a concise statement of errors per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
    Appellant timely complied on August 20, 2018.
    Preliminarily, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional
    requisite. Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 
    148 A.3d 849
    (Pa.Super. 2016). A
    PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying
    judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is “final” at
    the conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking review.
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow for
    limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused;
    a petitioner asserting an exception must file a petition within 60 days of the
    date the claim could have been presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2).
    Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on April 16,
    2011, upon expiration of the 30 days to file a petition for allowance of appeal
    -2-
    J-S02032-19
    in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a). Appellant filed
    the current PCRA petition on December 11, 2017, which is patently untimely.
    See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).          Appellant attempts to invoke the “new
    constitutional   right”   exception   at   Section   9545(b)(1)(iii),   relying   on
    Commonwealth v. Maconeghy, 
    642 Pa. 770
    , 
    171 A.3d 707
    (2017) (holding
    expert witness may not express opinion that particular complainant was victim
    of sexual assault based upon witness accounts couched as history, in absence
    of physical evidence of abuse; such testimony invades province of jury
    relative to determining credibility).      Even if Appellant could establish that
    Maconeghy announced a new constitutional right subject to retroactive
    application, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), he still would not be entitled
    to relief.   Significantly, the Commonwealth presented physical evidence of
    sexual abuse at trial, so Maconeghy is inapposite. Thus, Appellant’s current
    PCRA petition remains time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm.
    Order affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 2/12/19
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2269 EDA 2018

Filed Date: 2/12/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/12/2019